Carver

To present my thoughts on it in a vulgar form, I will present an example: Let's say I'm banned. Let's say I don't care about appealing the ban, but I hold particular issue with the staff member who dealt the ban. I've made a staff complaint, not because I want to argue my ban, but because I truly think this non-existent staff member is a piece of shit and should be demoted. Had I an issue with the ban (or any sort of punishment) in this example, I would not have gone to a staff complaint, but rather a ban appeal. As, per the wording of it, I'm ultimately complaining about the staff member.

Did you try it? That's a genuine question. Historically, community input in regard to lore has been negligible in these types of threads. The only input that matters is the one in charge of whichever facet of lore you're looking to have changed. The purpose of which, per what I said: "-getting a series of reasons why you think this should be the case, and seeing precisely how valid those reasons may be-" It can be reasonably expected that if you want something you should be willing to argue for it against all cases. Whilst I still disagree with your arguments (and the intent of the suggestion), you've made them and they're now publicly visible. Sufficiently presenting your case to whomever opts to read this.

Bigger issue is the assload of bloat that'd entail as one would need a clone variant for every organic, non-Aut'akh species and sub-species. Instead of several races of clones, it'd be easier to have it be handled by the disability system that players can currently use.

Amusing as that'd be, no. The intent was getting a series of reasons why you think this should be the case, and seeing precisely how valid those reasons may be; meanwhile presenting that suggestion threads are, perhaps, not always the most direct way to get what you want (As it is also perhaps noteworthy that this suggestion does not require much if any work from a developer). If you're capable of arguing something reasonably to me, then one could easily do so via DM to whichever lore handler is in charge of this sub-species.

Implying that Medical ever tended to clones in the first place.

Then, per what I said, have the lore team clarify it and this thread is no longer necessary. A solution presented to the problem.

You once more disregard the end point of my argument, bravo. I will present this in the form of quotes that can be pieced together in order.

Impactful death is finally a proper thing in the setting? I'm pleasantly surprised.

I certainly wouldn't go to work with a concussion. As for the others, why the Hell not.

My argument has been consistent the entire way (refer to the following quote that you opted not to read). You chose to cherrypick a reply pointing out a significant detail in them being a distinct sub-species, whilst failing to understand that 'genetic freak' and 'sub-species' (the term I used for a reason, they're not a 'new species') can be considered interchangeable in the context presented: A maladaptive degeneration resulting from multiple generations living exclusively in zero gravity, ultimately changing their morphology. You can go in circles with 'muh headcanon', or you can end the need for this entire suggestion thread by turning to the only people who can actually give you the result you desire. As whether or not a species or sub-species can be a role is not the decision of the general community.

Don't forget the most important of all.

Might've changed with brainmed, which wouldn't surprise me.

I recall that a bottle of hard liquor can keep you ICly drunk for like an hour if you space out the sips, but that requires a whole fucking bottle.

You don't suddenly lose your nips, navel and other defining human features whilst turning into a chupacabra. If that's somehow meant to look human, it really doesn't.

And in a very roundabout way I am saying that the decision is ultimately made by the lore team. The consistency there-in lays in them being, mechanically, a sub-species akin to the various types of Tajara. If you were born without said defects and developed physical flaws over time, that would not genetically make you an off-worlder, that'd make you a physically disabled human. You would not look like this unless it were distinctly genetic. You would instead look like a taller, skinnier and frailer version of this. This is why I would have vastly preferred if such conditions were handled from the disabilities menu in character creation rather than making them entirely separated to a mechanical sub-species.

I have to imagine this is an oversight in brainmed, as hulks were designed before pain and intended to be stun-immune, to which they could never be downed by pain before brainmed. Bay hasn't exactly had hulks for quite a while I believe, thus leading to the oversight and your issue.

I'm merely reinforcing the point of the recommended post. If it is, per the statement of said post, less than a year which I find completely believable on part of NanoTrasen, then that's that. Otherwise, as I stated: "-until clarification is offered by the lore team, there should never be exceptions to background requirements." Lived in, no. Genetically 'adapted'/degenerated over multiple generations, yes. To call them a sub-species is indeed correct. I present to you a series of questions: Did they suffer from the maladaptive traits common to the sub-species before? What inspired you to retcon a character in such a fairly significant manner? Would you have written them the same way as you had, with these genetic defects in mind?

Nanako no, Nanako go.

Echoing the above, the name felt wholly misleading and I'd thought the same at first until I saw mention of people dying and Tups.

1 ≠ 10. I fully understand the context presented here, and in turn believe that no species or sub-species should disregard the background requirements for Captaincy. No other head position has the same requirement. Now, should the requirements for Captaincy be changed, then so shall my opinion. Zundy also makes a fair argument in the post above, but until clarification is offered by the lore team, there should never be exceptions to background requirements.

I wouldn't make a player complaint if you were a shitty admin. I wouldn't make a staff complaint if I personally disagreed with a decision. A complaint I feel is something built-up over time, and I'd see a valid complaint as an admin who makes the wrong decision with malicious intent or is simply unfit for their position. Not someone who made a singular disagreeable judgement that I have a personal argument against (the judgement, not the someone). Or in short, how I see it: Player complaint: Argue against the player Staff complaint: Argue against the staff member's position (That is, whether they deserve their rank) Note/Warning appeal: Argue against the note/warning Unban appeal: Argue against the ban

I see no reason for a special exception on a time-limited restriction. It will go regardless, let it come in due time rather than rushing things pointlessly. Especially as your OW characters need the time and experience within NanoTrasen before they're viable for the position. Being a disabled sub-species does not allow one to bypass the requirements thereof, especially for Captaincy.

The process explained: Consume alcohol, ambrosia, space drugs or any sort of depressant chemical. Try to operate heavy machinery such as a fabricator or lathe. Behold an increased likelihood of crippling accidents akin to what those with ridiculous hairstyles get when using fabricators. Or in short, don't drink and do drugs at work.

The issue therein is that calling it/having it be a staff complaint feels like you're arguing against the personal conduct of the staff member, rather than arguing against the note itself. I typically view complaints (and tend to see them used) as a 'this person is terrible' thing.