Azande

Hi! Over my years here, I've had the pleasure of playing with a variety of your characters at various times, roleplaying with you and experiencing many rounds with your characters. I have no issue with +1ing this application many times, but my one thing is that I'd love to see RIP continue to be a non-CMO for a longer time and see him advance gradually to a point where medical staff not only enjoy working with him but respect him and his skills

Ayden is easily noticeable as a character on the server (contrary to previous comments), as is always eager to help and offer his help to my variety of command characters. He helps keep fellow engineering personnel on track already, and he's always been a fun person to interact with. Strong +1, gimme more CEs.

Butterobber, event info is literally announced in round after the event is setup. Our players never have metagamed this and I never would expect them to. I'm against efforts to reduce transparency and community discussion.

You're working on a research facility that is dealing with trade secrets of NanoTrasen. You will not find phones or devices of personal nature in /any/ private research lab of a company. Full stop. My next point, IT IS A GAME. We do not need a full legal system thrown in to justify A GAME. Seriously dude, you need to let this kinda stuff go. I already suggested having a Biesel Police Officer replace the detective role - that was shot down by Jackboot basically. NanoTrasen manages a large portion of NanoTrasen space, the government has little to no reason to operate where NanoTrasen is - NT has a full security department of officers with equal training, NT has a fleet in the area keeping the area secure from pirates. NT is basically the jurisdictional authority of their area in space, with Biesel stepping in as required as a federal authority when required - but rarely, the government serves at the pleasure of the Corporation.

They're not being banned. Garn is waiting for an opportunity to speak to them. I can provide a discord username if you'd like?

[mention]Garnascus[/mention] boop..?

I was told characters cannot be ERT. I tried to go ERT as a HoS character of mine once, and was forced to change name and given informal warning not to do it again.

This was never a thing except for a select group of people that liked to say they were more experienced than others. 'Level Two' is also used as a the admin. role in the Security Discord, which is affiliated but not owned/operated by Aurora. Additionally, the idea of Security Officer Level I/II had nothing to do with rank, or authority, only paygrade and seniority.

I actually really like the idea. [mention]Senpai Jackboot[/mention] is there any way they can be combined with current Xenoarchaeological-Vox lore to make... Sense?

The developers of Ultima Online introduced a simulated ecology of animals and plantlife that was self-replicating but as soon as it was introduced to the players, the players conducted mass slaughter and basically drove all the NPC animals to extinction despite there being little to no benefit in killing them. If you introduce small animals, people will kill them. People still kill cavern dwellers which are neutral unless provoked and pose no threat. plz don't trust us

This is what I am talking about - it is clear (and made obvious in various situations) that staff have unspoken ideas on how Command staff should act, behave and present themselves, and this sometimes conflicts with an individual's view on how command, or their command character - should act. One example is when Captains enter combat (without outright being required) . Some might view this as a leader charging into battle with their crew for the sake of their station (something that has happened many times throughout history), but staff do not support Captains entering or being near combat most of the time. In fact, I got a warning for being a room away from active combat as my Captain. I at least, feel like I've been reprimanded for expectations held against me that are specific in staffs mind, but left for us to guess parts of in our applications and not get warned for during play.

Considering I've had IRs filed against me for really petty things, I'd say a lot of players make them because OOCly they have an issue.

Antags are antags regardless of the time of day they are playing in. Malf AI is not a role that can readily physically interact with crew outside of holopads and the speed in which crew can disable the cameras of an AI (neutralizing its effectiveness), can really put a damper on taking your time with the crew. Additionally, because a staff member declared this something that was NOT an OOC issue, you can not bring it up in a player complaint - you must instead file a staff complaint against the staff member, I believe. [mention]Sharp[/mention] or [mention]Garnascus[/mention] could clarify this point.

((This is an In-Character board...))

Those are just a minor example, I'm more focused on OOC issues with head of staff quality. I find IRs to be long and drawn out and lead to little if any punishment which I am not often even told of what happened in the end to them unless it was a demotion of a singular character or higher action than that (when my HoS character was suspended, I was told I could make another HoS character and play the role still). Regulations such as uniform policies, the authority of internal affairs (I've had a few heads of staff try to correct my IAA on things and they end up being wrong, it's embarrassing, this includes me asking an employee to review their PDA messages to investigate a complaint about THEIR PDA MESSAGES and a CMO telling me I shouldn't be violating crew privacy for my investigation). Heads of Staff should know any lore that affects in game situations. They should know there's been what, two canon pirate attacks on the first NSS Aurora, they should know it's illegal to leave NanoTrasen's employment and get hired by another interstellar company, they should probably know our current President's name and the name of our Chief Executive Officer (some seriously haven't known who Miranda Trasen is)

Basically, a list of expectations that are very clear of what staff expect from head of staff whitelistees (lore can follow suit with races if they like the idea too?). Right now, we have an application and once the person is accepted they're dropped in the deep end and able to play as the ultimate authority captain and meant-to-be extremely knowledged IAAs. The problem is, I've seen a lot of Heads of Staffs that no nothing about tau ceti lore, are missing large portions of regulations that they should understand clearly and other such problems. Admins/Mods will frequently tell Head of Staff players if punished that more is expected from our whitelisted community members, but there is not a clear outline outside of the application of what is precisely required of us on an OOC and even IC level. If the staff could provide a clear outline of the expectations heads of staff will be held to (and which breaching could see their whitelist revoked), I think it would improve our current body of whitelisted players.

no This gives me an idea, thank you Delta.

I agree with everything except this. you as an HoS do not get to order me to not wear a stab vest on green. You can order me to put it on if i am refusing for some silly reason. Security guards on our server have all the training of actual cops. the job title is just different. security guards in real life vary WILDLY in terms of experience and gear they carry. Generally security guards in real life are NOT trained to get involved physically. they are a physical deterrent and often dont even carry weapons. At least here in the US the training to become one is basically just a 40 hour course in a classroom. "observe and report" you dont get physical. thats for actual cops. You cannot really draw a fair comparison between security guards in real life and those on our server. Though you CAN find some security guards in real life that are almost or as well trained as cops. The Head of Security has the authority to do as they wish with your uniform and gear. If they want to take all the batons from Officers, they can. The Head of Security has penultimate authority over Security under the Captain’s ultimate authority. File incident reports, outright saying ‘HoS cant do this’ as a headmin kinda subverts CCIA’s various statements about the authority of Command staff because players will expect what you are saying is actual policy (despite not being based in anything other than personal ipi ion) Onto the thread itself- I don’t like wearing my vest on green, I carry it in my backpack along with my helmet, and if I respond to a call I throw the vest on while sprinting, if its code blue both articles go on. That’s how I personally operate, I don’t force Officers to wear their vests if they don’t want to. While you could argue Officers are in dangerous situations - an angry employee could just as easily wait outside the bridge and stab the captain violently in the chest as they come out - as the Captain doesn’t wear armour standardly, so the argument kinda falls apart? Idk

They are a very very new player to Space Station, accidentally introduced them to Aurora through my barotrauma community. I would much prefer a staff member talk to them and explain the culture of our server and space station before outright banning them.

This is resolved but I do just want to ask a relevant question to this kind of issue, in the Staff Vault, the following post is still pinned from our previous Head Administrator Doomberg: This implies that gank punishments cannot be applied if you are attacking someone that is armed and can harm you - I just want to know if this is still the staff's policy.

Must again share my disagreement as one of our lone IAAs. Don't further destroy the fragile relationship that IAA has with station authorities.

This is what I am saying, all this will do is discourage security from communicating with their voices about searches - which is not something I want to see.

As a roleplay server that is experiencing an issue with communication in Security specifically, I think making it easier to just not communicate things is not an improvement.

Pretty sure the tag system ONLY contains 'wanted, released/paroled, prisoner/incarerated'

-1. Security should be encouraged to communicate with one another and not rely on hud statuses. Arrest status is primarily for beepskys and can't be translated into searches.