Scheveningen

OK. One last chance then. I'll lift the permaban and apply an indefinite antagonist ban so you may still play on the server, once you reply and agree to the next set of terms. I want you to figure out if other antagonists' playstyles are what you want to base your own off of, to observe how they escalate their own IC agendas and how they create conflict. I do not want to make it seem like I'm setting you up for failure, so I want to give you a chance without necessarily giving you the means to tempt yourself into doing something you probably should've thought twice in doing. That sound good or no?

You did leave three craters. One giant gaping one in the main hallway, another to the side maintenance passageway to the library and yet another behind research. This is not a first time offense. I warned you prior to the round in which you suicide bombed as a changeling 40 minutes into the round after detonating the two bombs in maintenance. That explosion was a size 24, whereas the other two were size 7s. I'm not sure what you expected, you have a weekban administered by me seven months ago for similar behavior, and you come back and make the same characteristic judgement calls again. This isn't bias whatsoever. You have problematic history, a type of behavior that had evidently not improved in seven months at all, and the round before I calmly explained to you how to properly act as an antagonist, especially since the round before there were 2 other ninjas to help guide you and offer suggestions, one of them being "Do not go around killing people", interestingly enough. It is not personal. I deal with cases with these on a regular basis with similar attitude towards it. The round before you were permabanned I even gave you leniency in the form of a warning until you showed the admins online you didn't deserve it.

Since it's my ban, actually, I reserve the right to either accept it or deny it. Your attitude was expected and that's all I really needed to make a decision here. So it's denied.

-I do. It's my own irl job to be familiar with who I work with for the ease of communication. As I said, good luck getting people to kick the old habit. I made an earlier suggestion about the unknown name filters until examining them and it saves across the two characters til the end of time. You said you didn't want this mechanically enforced, so whatever. -At threat of a ban, because metagaming is obviously bad no matter what server you're on. Calling someone by their name instead of "that engineer" is hardly on the level of toxic behavior that screaming the ai is rogue exists upon. -OK. -Name the staff member that allowed this in its own complaint and I'll see to it personally that whoever was apathetic about the whole thing gets chewed out. That's ridiculous for a staff member to not bother investigating. That's not the standard we uphold.

Uhm, I already discussed this earlier in the thread, but I guess I can run through it again. This is roughly what I would consider acceptable, non-metagamey realism. -Don't identify the names of people over radio outside your department, unless you're friends with them or they've told you. -Don't recognize people's identity in person unless you've been in close proximity and been able to see their ID or something, unless you have a reason to previously know them well -Take into account distance and environmental aspects. If you see a mercenary from the other side of a dim maintenance tunnel, through a closed airlock, you should probably only be able to discern 'some guy in a red hardsuit is over there', not "HEPHAESTUS INDUSTRIES COMMANDOS IN SCIENCE MAINT SEC HELP", regardless of if their ID actually says they are a Hephaestus Industries Commando" -AI (and synths) cannot recognize voices and names instantly over the radio. They can recognize faces immediately though, if they center their camera on someone and they are not wearing a mask. Borg can read ID cards at close proximity, but AI cannot read ID cards, only faces, clothing, body features, and the job tag that shows up on SecHUD. (though maybe add a feature that lets AI see an ID you use on a camera, similar to papers?) -It's a fair assumption all of the co-workers are well acquainted with one another. It's a part of the game to call each other by name unless there are other circumstances such as voice changers. You're not going to break this habit very easily by yourself, neither is the staff team. -Again, a habit that will be difficult to break. This is a third person top-down game, not a 1st person one. -Most people already abide by that principle. Those that don't are typically metagaming anyway. -Yes they can, people wearing IDs give electronic readouts to synthetics. How do you think SecHUDs and medical HUDs work? The AI can enable both. They're directly wired to the telecommunications system and can show for themselves in-game what individuals said something, what their species is, and what language they were speaking in addition to the message spoken. This console can be found and used by any individual in the game to infer who's speaking over comms. Take the following image as an example from Fallout which operates on the same principles when it comes to identification recognition. . Again, though, why are you telling staff to do what they're already doing as part of our policy? Writing new rules merely junks up the rule page with subtle nuances of roleplay that aren't worth clogging up an already expansive document. As a community member, it is your responsibility to report rule violations straight away or we assume they're not happening or it's fine by you. We have never made it a point to be proactive when it comes to IC nuance cases and slapping people about for it. We take OOC issues more seriously when it comes to being proactive but as part of our policy we attempt to interfere as little with roleplay as possible. As personal testimony you're usually the last person that I can think of to be adminhelping about these sorts of things, but you never practice what you preach. Why?

I'm disinclined to acquiesce given the amount of times we (as in, the team) have attempted this song and dance before with you. 1. You get told to tone down the amount of egregious over-escalation as an antagonist or not, and you claim to understand and agree to this. 2. You end up skipping rope with the line of acceptability we set and get confused when we reprimand or ban you. 3. You give half-hearted apologies and claim your course of action was fine because 'another admin told you so.' I will need a better reason than what I've already read in order to unban you. I would rather not have to deal with this sort of thing again if it becomes a waste of time and also causes a single individual to ruin an entire round again as a result of the stupid conditions you caused directly.

I actually thought of a stupid mechanical idea. How about you don't recognize anyone's voice over the radio unless you examine the individual speaking over it in person, and it corrects the voice for the rest of the round? Granted that would be imaginably griefy but I figure it's a fun idea.

Hi. Coalf and I were recently assigned to the Head of Staff whitelisting team, in particular I was assigned to this application by the head admin as a start. So. Let's get right into it. The first page of responses are nothing particularly notable, personally I would not deny an application because a cadet had issues with officer oversight and how it was handled although it does reflect on the officer's ability to properly lead and converse with their department. BSA posted something... insightful, to say the least. A major expectation of heads of staff is to be able to take charge and direct their department seriously in a crisis. Not doing this causes a complete breakdown of a department structure in which it is every man for themselves. A head of staff must also be able to enable their own subordinates to do their job, not roadblock them either on purpose or by not recognizing when they need assistance. Communication as a third, is ultimately important here. A breakdown of a department while the head of staff is still alive and perfectly able to direct their department is rarely acceptable. It means the entire department ceases to function properly, meaning the other departments may just as well break down as well. Not to say this is a bad thing, this is a bad thing actually, but not necessarily punishable either. But rather, if you don't put effort into making a good impression as a leadership-inclined employee, why should you be a head of staff? As a final point. Heads of staff must, before anything else, be good subordinates before they can even consider being in a leadership role. I'll wait two days before I make a decision.

There was a shooter in Las Vegas earlier this morning who shot an approximate 10,000~ assorted rounds from the range of either the 29th to the 32nd floor of a hotel. His intended target was into the crowd of over 22,000 people attending a country concert, several hundred feet from the actual country grounds. This went on for 10-15 consecutive minutes until the police arrived and breached into the hotel room of the shooter, where he was found dead. This is the deadliest shooting in the United States in modern times (58 currently dead and 515 people hospitalized, it's possible the death count could rise) and there's no known motive at this time that can be taken from the scene at this point. I hope nobody here was caught in it and that none of your friends or family were caught in it either. Hope you all stay safe, this is a really crazy month behind the Canadian terrorist attack and the riots in Catalonia just yesterday. If you're currently in the West Coast and a stone's throw away from Las Vegas right now, you should drive over to donate blood to the local hospitals, at the SpringHill Suites Las Vegas Convention Center at 2989 Paradise Road and Ernest May Elementary School at 6350 West Washburn Road. You can also donate money to the Southern Nevada chapter of the American Red Cross. It's not accepting donations specifically for this shooting, but it always welcomes general support for disaster relief efforts. Give on its website, by phone at 702-369-3674 or via mail at 1771 East Flamingo Road, #206B, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89119. There are many other local orgs you can support right now but the Red Cross is your most reliable bet if you want to do some good.

Brainmed is supplemented by Baystation not mapping in a cloning facility at all. There's no point to adding brainmed if doctors can forego effort to save someone by just throwing them into a tube and pressing two buttons. It is easier to clone someone than it is to save someone with heavy injuries and bleedout from death.

Is it not important to keep design philosophy and enforcement of roleplay guidelines consistent with one another? If anyone can be able to be killed in any method possible without having to worry about them returning in the round later and thus making your attempt at assassinating them without sabotaging the station or cutting their head off, thereby disallowing any subtle methods of execution and making it possible to kill people in more discrete methods such as poisoning or pinning the death on natural causes, wouldn't this make for more interesting ways of killing people? You no longer have to tip-toe around specifics in order to properly remove a certain character from coming back in the round and rendering any of your attempts of antagonizing pointless because you didn't saw off their head, throw them into space or hide the body while taking off their jumpsuit. This removes the gymnastics required to properly kill someone. Is that not a plus? These two things are tangentially unrelated and not relevant to the discussion. Stop before you go further. You are putting words into my mouth, I never made this implication nor did I ever make the stretch to imply the extreme as a possible resolution. I did not once say that all characters upon death should be wiped from the database. I have characters I treasure and play with every amount of investment in me. I said to remove cloning. I did not say to remove characters. The danger random events place to other characters is unfortunate but largely not my concern. Dying is a part of the game and a critical part of what makes the game fun, right behind antagonists and the enjoyment they provide in making things happen. "If X is implemented, the extreme Z will inevitably happen" is a false assertion to make and you've nothing to provide that would suggest otherwise. This is nonsense.

Remove cloning. The guarantee of cloning for station-loyal individuals or roles cheapens the concept of risking your life because you can just be revived within 10 minutes. When death is cheap and fixable, surviving the round doesn't matter. A respawn timer of 30 minutes already exists to assist other people to back into the round as another character that they wish to play, in addition to the multitude of other minor responsibility roles such as drone, mouse or doona noomphs. The respawn timer can be kicked down to 20 minutes to compensate. Ramboing against someone using lethals will 9 times out of 10 lead to the death of the crewmember, not the antagonist being cheesed by stun mechanics. A lack of a revival option will allow antagonists to pursue assassination objectives with more confidence. Antagonists abide by these accepted unsaid standards: 1.) If you die, you're done playing as that character without any other special circumstances. 2.) You are disposable. You living drives the story of the round, you dying also drives the story of the round in the same breath. 3.) If you wanted to live you should've made more of an invested attempt in staying alive by packing sustain to fix damage dealt to you in hazardous situations. Why shouldn't non-antagonists? Why do crew get the exception?

I pack medical treatment if I feel I need it or if my team needs it as an antagonist. Especially important for heister teams and mercenary teams. Medical treatment fixes mistakes and provided you do not die in a single firefight, and it keeps other people from not dying. Not dying and your team not dying creates an invisible pressure in the minds of the security team that they're going to have to fight extremely hard to take down a team with the ability to heal themselves and keep their own numbers active. This is the same for individual antagonists. It's important to pick your fights, do your best to come out on top, and if you get hurt you need to administer medical treatment to yourself immediately. Not doing so leads to other consequences. If I do not pack immediate medical treatment and get heavily scarred by laser burns, that is my fault and I should take responsibility for not playing better and not packing sustain to stay alive. You only get one life in most circumstances. I enjoy getting my ass kicked as much as I enjoy kicking ass. When I get my ass kicked in-game it gives me the opportunity to look back on what I could've done better to prevent dying in the round. Such as, not taking as many hits in combat, packing back-ups tools in the likely event an obstacle is in my way and avoiding making decisions with too much risk and too little reward. If you die in the round, 99% of the time it was because of something within your control to prevent or outright avoid. The best way to survive is not to get hit in the first place. An unfortunate playstyle I often see because of the lack of real consequence in most situations is people taking unnecessary risks due to their ambitious and uncontrolled manner. They rush into situations without thinking and only care about coming out on top, they don't care about the how of it, they assume if they can blitz their enemy, they will catch their opponent off-guard and come out on top because the opponent couldn't react well enough. A baton-rushing security officer should be punished more for rushing a traitor with a laser gun without thinking. Even if the officer beats the traitor to death, they shouldn't be able to shrug off their infections for a half hour to an hour straight before suffering actual consequences. Swap the two around for similar circumstances, the logic should be the same. Combat should be tough and punishing. It should reward people who approach combat by thinking ahead and planning against factors that threaten their plans, and punish people who only play traitor just to rush conflict. Likewise for anyone who also has the mindset but plays it as a non-traitor!

Fair amount. I get shot, it's my problem.

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=15 follow the format please

Water doesn't slip people unless you're sprinting over it.

if you pick your fights incorrectly and insist on shooting with 3 people present and 2 more around the corner, yeah, you're gonna get annihilated. Non-antagonists are equally as susceptible to bullets and lasers. "get good" is a response to people who cannot deal with consequences being attached to every action they perform. sweeping generalization, citation needed. If you want to not get shot, 1. don't give someone reason to, 2. take every action necessary to not get shot.

That's not helpful. It's entirely possible for a pAI to be under orders from their master to be a shitlord. Or not have a master at all. Ahelping them for being annoying doesn't fix the issue of them being very difficult to pin down, when they have a valid reason to be allowed to be annoying. or maybe just deal with it? A pAI is not gonna do much besides walk into places it was given access to.

Hence the point of adminhelping. The inability to understand why the former adage exists and then stating the latter as to the exact reason why we say that, is a very common misconception from the average community member, but I'm going to just go out on a limb and say it's related on purpose. We do not catch 100% of the cases, the playerbase does because often more than not they are the ones in the round who notice these things. Ergo, if you notice suspicious behavior, report it. We cannot always catch powergamers in the act and thus it is the duty of anyone who cares in the community (like you have declared yourself as a person who cares many times in similar threads) to report these issues as they happen. Or else they aren't issues, right? Not reporting something makes us assume you're okay with it and wish to push no action against it. And that's your fault for remaining complacent, not ours.

It seems like this would bloat the game with more unnecessary offshoots of the same national language. It's not really going to be fun if no human understands one another due to speaking completely different dialects they didn't have set in their preferences.

furthermore I'm scrubbing this thread of hostile responses and handing out warnings to those who cannot merge two neurons to come up with a more constructive response than a single paragraph as to why they think negatively of the applicant.

The backstory leaves so much to be desired. As does the player's conduct on our server. There's more than what I've just listed below but this is based off of what's happened in the past 2 weeks. 2017-09-17 03:07:11 || juani2400 || Blew up a borg because the borg wanted to throw a positronic brain into the trash bin. Only got confirmation from a roboticist, while there was a Captain. Caused a huge explosion, given that the borg was exploded in Robotics. Two fuel tanks were exploded with it. 2017-09-22 00:18:46 || pratepresidenten || Reported for SSDing when caught as a traitor warden. By the report, they did not do much all round apart from not doing their job. 2017-09-22 21:42:08 || alberyk || Keep an eye for valid hunting/metagaming behavior, pretty much trying to overcharge and shove someone into solitary without any real reason. 2017-09-27 00:16:58 || sonicgotnuked || Warning added by sonicgotnuked, for: Assumed all comms compramised when raiders talk on the common channel. Please make sure you do not metagame or valid hunt as you are starting to get closer to larger punishments due to your history.. || Notes regarding the warning: Was understanding when I told them. If continued, I suggest punishment in the form of a three day security ban to refresh them on the metagaming and valid hunting rules for the server.. 2017-09-27 01:19:48 || sonicgotnuked || Ghosted out of their security officer to play as ERT during a code red situation. They were injured inside medical close to death but still getting some treatment, I told them to ahelp next time. Utterly opposed to this whitelist. I don't need to detail why this is wrong. -1

I'd probably scream for my life if someone was killing me in maintenance. I would think my own life matters more than "muh rp experience" from the antagonist, no?

Laptops are pretty notorious for switching IPs up anytime you pack it up to use elsewhere, so don't worry too much about the IP changes.

Allow me to explain then. The original ban you are referencing is an old ban applied to an account banned from late 2015, simply for a severe case of griefing. Over the course of two years our system has caught 16 bypass attempts of the ban. Make that 17. I'll go over the 17th one in a second because I find that interesting. Not counting bypass attempt #17, the mirror system has caught four particular CIDs (over 16 bans this narrows it down a lot) consistently in combination with less consistent IP swap-ups as the CIDs were changed, either by changing hardware of the computers directly or said computers being swapped out for new ones. The CID your laptop possesses has been consistent with catching past bypass attempts. At least five out of the 16. Connecting this back and forth pretty much implies there is some pretty intensive attempts at ban dodging, especially since some of the accounts that attempted to bypass the original ban were day zero or day one accounts being created before attempting to join the server. How do we know it's ban dodging that took place? Well, when IPs to a particular ckey is dynamic, it means it's either a laptop or a wiseguy using a proxy. Laptop more likely than proxy. Now when it comes to CIDs but the IP remains the same, it means there's either multiple physical computers or something special. Since there's more IP generations historically than CID ones, we will mostly lean on it either being the dynamic-IP call with some interesting links in history with other physical computers in the far-off past. Maybe someone sold you an old laptop previously and griffed spessmans with it? I dunno. As part of our job we have to err on the side of caution over this sort of thing. But! As for #17, the interesting part that sells my theory here is that the IP does change again when you made the access attempt (because it's a laptop, I'd hazard a guess!), except this time it is a couple stone throws from your library's IP location, unsurprisingly and reasonably so. In the same area, really, since this is a public appeal I won't divulge in specifics about that, as you have a right to privacy to not have me go on about that. So I'm inclined to believe you, though you must understand our hesitation in trying to leave some bans in place especially considering the amount of bypass attempts we see here. I make no promises but I'll shoot this in the general direction of the server host and see if he can make an exception, and also discuss if this is something we should be lifting. It's a matter of precaution, it's nothing personal. I also probably have a couple details wrong in relation to technical things, I know only a general grasp on this sort of thing and it's all mostly only patterns to me. Also, I'm editing out the IP you listed in the OP, mostly because we know you made the access attempt, you don't have to tell us (we appreciate it anyway), and we'd rather not risk other people trying to do guesswork on your real life location. Largely just to be considerate, I should've done it earlier but I didn't catch it in the main post and realize soon enough I should've fixed it for you.