Scheveningen

it's a good thing that police academies just updated their standards to start denying loose cannon personalities, and that you're not a cop. Cops do more harm than good to their communities with this kind of "assess and eliminate" attitude rather than a "protect and serve" one. Because I think it's pretty terrifying what you said about not showing any restraint and going completely trigger happy if you had two "assault weapons" on your person. That's really not someone I want with any degree of authority especially with your notoriety of generally putting yourself into positions of aggression to engage in wholesale slaughter more times than not actually doing so. This is less excusable as a non-antagonist with no combat skills or experience to speak of. It breaks any semblance or point to roleplaying conflict if we allow just anyone to partake in risking themselves to dealing with physical threats head-on. It devalues the entire experience and gentrifies it to the point where antagonists don't enjoy creating conflict anymore because they know that there will be the odd crewmember that suddenly busts out their extensive OOC combat knowledge to click sprites horizontal rather than prioritizing reasonable character goals. Something I'm sure you know of but probably don't care about by now, seeing as how you put yourself into this position to earn the warning in the first place.

No, I said it was valid for an antagonist to be using for pretty much any reason at all in the context I gave you. You took this as an opportunity to hunt antagonists by yourself with little to no combat skill to be noted of. While regrettable that I had to ban you because you decided to be AFK at decidedly one of the worst opportunities to be doing so, I don't see any merit in actually unbanning you.

only 2 normally spawn on the map during game modes that do not include heist. these robusting machines have for whatever reason ignored any attempts at balance changes to check for armor values. god should worry about what's under his bed before deciding to smite unbelievers for believing in "false idols", because even the telebaton can stunlock almost all mobs into submission regardless of their armor condition unless its a fullblock. but when has armor ever done anything good for you? god makes an exception in this case because this icon is to be feared and respected. bless art thou who smite virgin antag bitches with the corporate security pimp cane . T̴̫̬̭̪̤̭̣̝̳̞̲̣͙̹͎͕͌͒̄ͫͩͯ͂͛̉͑́̿̚͢.̨ͭ̓ͯ̈͑͐̔̂͒ͭͨ͐̐ͤ͂ͤ̚͏̡̛̪̥̲͙̠̳͕̳̻̟̠Wͭ̄̾͛͛͑͏͏͇̺̰͙̹̠̩̱͠e̸͙̪̥̼̝̤̙̭̹̲̫͇͎̱̼͎̲̖̙ͩ̄ͬͪ̅ͬ̈͋̓̊̂̽ͩ͂͂́͜a̷̤̟̹̣̭͖̺̰͓͍͖̼̹̫̠͔̓̒ͧ̆̑́̽̉̈́̿́̂̎̌ͨ̇ͨ͘ͅk̷̵̳̜̫̹̱̜̮̥̻͙̗̫̇͗͑̌̃̐̌̀̚͡ę̌̀ͤ͊̀̀҉̖͖̠̟̮͔̭͞n̵̛̮̤̭̤̝̫͎̯̹̹̪͇̥͉͎̪̎ͣ̿͊ͨ͒̆̋ͤ̄̾ͭ̀͘(̸̛̲͙̗̞̳̭̼̰̈͋͂̒ͬ͋̍̆̂̐̓5̵̷̶̧̛̻̥̪̰͚͖͕̩̬͖̜̦̘̯̲̤͛ͩͣͩ͆́̍͊ͮ͂ͮ͛̐̈́ͬ̽͂)͔̣͈͕̘̾ͥ͒̄ͯͥ̆̏ͤ̂̾̏̓͢

I think this ban dates back a little bit so I can't recall the exact circumstances off the top of my head, but I don't think I would've placed a permaban like this if someone wasn't acting extremely rude and mean on purpose.

Alright, just for future reference, I'm not the one handling the appeal but I should make note of it so you don't attempt it again on other servers, but no SS13 server I know of ever wipes their permabans on purpose. I can understand the reasoning why, but for the most part the flaw in that design is that people who want to lazily evade bans and grief again would just have to wait for the ban list to be wiped sometime, which is why none of the servers that I can think of do that. Try not to make it a habit in the event you ever get banned on any other server since those that give out permabans with reliable enough ban databases tend to stick until appealed. Just a minor clarification, but the advice might help in case you have to explain the same thing to another server that may not be obliged to that explanation.

the appeal reason is insightful enough to make me happy for you at this point. i'll accept this appeal, try to avoid behavior that got ya the ban from last time, you know the drill. lifting immediately.

Being the most complained about /=/ Inadequate for the job. I think it is important to make that distinction. But beyond that, something kinda funny happened today that I might've deserved in my attitude towards the above posters in recent history. I had to be rushed to the ER for serious hypertension at work today. If I insisted on staying longer to work at my job I probably would've had a heart attack. Apparently my hypertension was a result of the high blood pressure I've had, which is a result of the some of the stress being put on me both on-server, as a result of this complaint I've admittedly been worrying about, some personal stuff in addition to the hectic high-speed low-drag work day I had to deal with. And before I was discharged with a lot of painkillers (probably the largest reason I'm avoiding hostility right now, as I don't want a repeat incident), I was pretty much told by the doctor to avoid high-stress work until a couple weeks when I'm expected to check back in for an appointment. So basically, any drama I've created as of recent was definitely my fault and I could've gotten seriously hurt more than usual if I had done or said more things that didn't benefit much to other community members I may have acted against. I'm not lobbying for pity because I had a near-death experience, save it. This is just for context so people understand why I've changed my mind and recognized I've done some wrongs here and made some bad judgements. I do not intend to seem manipulative, but I won't admit to bias because my intentions were, are, and will be to uphold server rules, I will insist on saying that I am not a selfish person. I can be bullheaded and a bit of a moral crusader when it's inappropriate but that's my mistake. My overzealousness has effectively become the flaw that defines the crux of the issues being brought before me here. There's little benefit for me to be taking selfish actions because they hurt other people more than they help me and when other people get screwed over it really doesn't help my own goals to be assisting or promoting for the server at large. I do not really forgive myself for how I acted yet so I am in no position to be asking for forgiveness. I apologize for my conduct and will accept any consequences for my actions.

That's not why I locked the thread. I locked the thread because, once again, you broke forum rules by bringing your own personal levied spite out into the open and throwing out pity ripostes (as you're doing now) because I had a misconception over what your suggestion was about. Considering you do this on a consistent basis on-server and off and overblew a miscommunication and decided to twist it to call me incompetent, I had the thread locked until an administrator decides to handle your awful attitude. This isn't an isolated instance, you parade your ugly attitude out on a persistent basis when it is absolutely unnecessary. I was cordial and nice in that thread up until you made that response and I had no actual need to tolerate your elitist attitude. You have actually ignored attempts at communication as to what is wrong with your manner of posting and my associated inboxes remain empty from you. You have not "requested" any sort of clarification as to your forum warnings nor have you chosen to attempt to engage me on a more convenient medium such as discord for discussion. If you have sent me a PM, it is likely I ignored it because you were rude and standoffish. If someone fails to understand for the third time in discipline what the issue is about their own attitude, then I do not expect anyone to have to be obligated to beat sense into them. General procedure is to move offending posts to the forum bin. Soft deletes only happen for posts that action is not taken for, especially in the dev-related forums where maintainers just simply prune threads that don't abide by any objective of discussion. Doubling back to the topic, the offending post was indeed off-topic and had no bearing on the actual discussion, and the tone of the post by itself mandated a warning especially since you know better but apparently not? I wonder why rules are enforced in those cases, especially for known repeat offenders and shitposters, strange. Locking a thread because you decided to double down and resort to insults because of my misunderstanding of the intention of a suggestion (without even me being rude, I've no idea how I provoked such a fragile response from you) is hardly equivalent to suggesting passive-aggressively that you would like to assault them. Could you take a minute and check yourself before you make such awful comparisons? I understand if life is very boring for you at home or something and this is how you get your kicks but you have to learn to act like an adult sometime rather than when it suits you, and to perhaps not turn every environment you interact with into a constant high-school drama gagefight. It's funny how you go out on an extreme limb like this on a consistent basis because I don't even have to do anything to you to provoke this, but it doesn't even accomplish anything. What's it all for, man? What do the numbers mean, could you tell me? I think unless [mention]Munks[/mention] wants to pitch in, you should probably mind your own business, especially since this has little to do with the actual issue, that being you getting upset because a staff member decided they didn't want to deal with your attitude for an otherwise unprovoked situation. The point of an unban appeal is to take culpability for their actions that led to their initial ban. Munks did not do so and phrased it as if it were a complaint and then stopped replying when I raised multiple rather important concerns about conducting oneself in a mature fashion and suddenly he clammed up, thus it was denied since it was a timed ban anyway. As a word of advice, it wouldn't hurt to hesitate a little and stop projecting your own labels such as "embarrassed" or whatever your attempts at being insulting are about. I log on to make sure folks are having fun and so on. I don't log on to endure the typical toxic nonsense that comes from the subset of people who leave Aurora because they didn't like how it was managed and for whatever reason comes back, but not to promote positive attitudes or funpost, but to inject their own personal misgivings about the server climate at any opportunity they get. Your mannerisms don't match someone who wants to be productive and contribute to the community they attend and enjoy, your mannerisms match someone holding a heavier grudge against the community than any kind of grudge I could ever hold against any one person. That animosity can make people sick, you should definitely dial down on the constant negativity you have about yourself. However, I'm perfectly able to forgive and even apologize for my own actions and discuss misgivings over discord, Scheveningen#4745 is my discord key name. I have very few rules about what I discuss with someone in DMs and I will allow someone to chew me out if they like in private. On a public forum we do not allow it because of our rules on flame wars. If I cared so much about my public image I probably would have locked this too.

Absolute. Characters must abide by the age requirement. Offenders will generally be dealt with case-by-case.

I misunderstood the intention of your thread as I thought you meant you wanted ingested chemicals to metabolize even slower but still hit like a truck when it finally processes. But at that point you've already been rude, so I'll just lock this for a bit and point an admin to your post then see how this progresses shortly after.

Is it a used computer with multiple owners in the past year? If so, how many besides yourself?

That chemical doesn't exist. The only individuals that do this are ERT. No other character that I have seen "abuses" hyperzine. It is rarely, if ever, prescribed to crewmembers as combat chemicals.

Is your computer a desktop or a laptop?

I assume this is only for ingested-based reagents instead of injected? If it were implemented to injected reagent transferals, it would be really hard to dunk on a lot of people with chlorophoride if it doesn't act instantly. The suggestion sounds good provided it counts just for the ingestion part of it. Although I wish the hunger system was more meaningful than it is now to promote these sorts of things.

I was the traitor CMO this round. I caused the false alarm ion storm announcement on purpose to distract the command staff so I could commit a humble array of serial killings while security was too busy handling the synthetics. They weren't really metagaming, they were baited into it on purpose by another traitor.

This used to be an old feature that was long forgotten before we did the switch to baycode. It was shortlived as the organ printer and didn't see a lot of attention. What I'm suggesting is that you can't reach your radio when you're in paincrit on the ground or if you're handcuffed. It doesn't automatically activate. Ergo, in cases where you cannot fathomably activate your headset like that, you shouldn't be able to yelp into comms in the event you get floored due to weakening or by being restrained. What this does, both with positive and negative consequences: 1.) Gives antagonists an added edge of being able to stun someone with one measure or another without too much risk of the person being targeted yelping into their headset like a whinybaby player rather than an actual character that would avoid being killed faster because they ratted out the guy attacking them. This specifically allows certain drugs to be used effectively to sedate targets, unlike now in which people can yell to everyone who's killing them at X, Y, Z coordinates! 2.) Inadvertently gives security much of the same edge. 3.) Changes up the meta a bit for people to communicate in different manners before they give chase to a confirmed antag lest they get stun-cheesed and dragged off into maintenance, allowing for more tense rounds in which people stop mysteriously responding. 4.) Will probably end up in people keying up ;HELP! as a macro whenever they have a spidey sense of an antag about to sneeze in their general direction. This was an old bit of code so I don't recall exactly how Scopes did it from years back to make this feature work, but it was pretty robust.

Appeal denied. This will expire by itself in less than a few days.

antags do this all of the time, are you serious?

Yes, let us further implement more features that promote our descent to a lower RP level server. I'm utterly ecstatic to the idea of every round devolving into pointless murder and confusion with little to no narrative being executed.

The ban is not IP related and because it's not IP related there is only a little under 1% chance of it being a false positive, and the reason you provided is only workable under certain conditions relating to the IP address specifically being banned. And so far it has nothing to do with it being a shared network. Pretty weird, right? So what's really up, exactly?

I think, aiming to seek out and hunt an antagonist with little justification to motivate one's own character to be attempting to kill said person and saying you were the victim of circumstance is kind of missing the point of why Datberry warned you.

Because shooting someone that moves requires you to re-sight and track the target as any traditional shooter would. There's no reason to add back the aimbot. There's no reason to add back the features that made it toxic. It was used like a crutch and it was removed because it added nothing but awful gameplay in the way it existed. If you cannot use guns in SS13, now's the time to practice and learn. Use stun measures to pacify someone you want to take hostage if you absolutely want to, because you cannot account for people coming quietly, just like how it works with security. Unlike with security, you only get one chance to tell someone to surrender and if they manage to get away, you're public enemy #1 to the entire station if no other antag has done anything. I also didn't say whatever JB said but it's expected shitposting at this point.

I mean, Garn. Ask Skull what he thinks about antagonists taking hostages. He'll tell you the same thing I tend to say: That taking hostages and expecting people to straight up surrender and risk their life 100% is generally pretty stupid. Nobody wants to be at the whims of a single special role that says if they live or die based on their subjective quality gimmick. People will only agree to be hostages if it suits their own purposes or if they have no other choice. If they have a legitimate choice to run or fight back, they're probably going to pick the one that doesn't 100% of the time get them executed by the antagonist but the one with only a 50% chance unless they're totally boxed in. The aim intent was nerfed to reduce its power as an aimbot. It is somewhat strong now as a guaranteed first shot mechanic and everything beyond that must be aimed properly. If you want someone to not get shot if they twitch, change your aiming options to not twitch-shot them before you try to take them hostage. I'd rather an antagonist get punished badly for bad accuracy than the same antagonist to be coddled with three free shots because security is guaranteed to abuse the same thing and it's not gonna be fun for anyone involved.

No. It defaults your shooting to manual shooting right after, meaning you can continue to fight if someone moves. Set permissions correctly if you actually intend to take a hostage. Can't fix an error caused by its user.

All of these replies were certainly not what Absynth informed me was the absolute 100% truth. Is it Abby that is right and I am wrong, once again?