Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zelmana

  1. Why would I want to, as a HoS main play, when my job duty is: Oversee the Warden, which is a minimal duty job that is getting the armroy together and documented and processing. Oversee investigations, which can run smoothly and optimally without much guidance. Oversee officers only during Red Alert. I would be doing what I do when I play that character as a visitor- sit down by the Kitchen speaking with Anya and anyone who wants to roleplay. This update kills HoS, and if you are of the opinion that this does not kill the HoS position, it severely numbs and nullifies it to the point where they do less leading than "the unofficial Command" aka Quartermaster.
  2. So- change Bandanna to be multi-slot type. I don't know if that is possible. When worn on face = covered, can be lowered like a sterile mask to hang around neck. When worn on eyes = blindfold mode When worn on head = headband mode (this is already an item so this could replace it.)
  3. Would be nice, I enjoy seeing cowboy-esque characters. But agree with others, roleplay is iffy and need to settle into a role.
  4. Make them better. Have them able to be used as an a blindfold, a headband, or on the earslot to have it look like neckslot. I don't know how to accomplish this nor will I code it. "Someone else do this."
  5. This was tested on 4/8. It was horrible. Security, when a situation was ongoing, lacked ability to collaboratively work. The addition of offices only meant even less roleplay, as they would sit around in their offices. On a non-dept security round, the security would typically be doing regular patrols through all of the department lobbies. Of course, there is some issue with certain department lacking any public lobby, and there is little roleplay interaction between security to those departments. Or, departments that have characters who are routinely stepping away to do other tasks. I feel as though there are better departments to split up for the sake of roleplay. Ones whose entire staff sit in one room location of the station, and not security (whose entire purpose is to walk around the entirety of the station during the duration of the round). Of course, an optimal choice for this would be medical. I do not like this.
  6. The only way I can see this being abusable if by some way a player would be able to change their variables, specifically the one that controls the global_hud. That variable is already messed around with any shader or goggle-type-hud worn. I think that if we have concerns for this being abusable, the concern instead is the ability to alter vars.
  7. Hello, I think for purposes of realism and for further development of certain mobs roles, vision should be changed. I think that custom global_huds (similar to how mesons and nightvision and all that work) to certain mobs where it makes sense. This would only apply to those mobs played by players and would not have an impact on their sight controlled by code. For example, the following mobs may be able to see in the dark but have a bit of a gaussian blur or tunnel vision. Mice Lizards Space shark ( summoned by wizard) And a few other mobs that may make sense. The impact would be that while in control of these mobs you would have those types of vision. If you go and play as a 🐁 mouse for example you would have a bit blurred vision on further away tiles like glasses, but also have the advantage of seeing in the dark maintenance areas.
  8. As with a lot of other posters here, I think that this is best suited for its own server. I believe that if users wish to play Tajarans and explore tajaran lore, they would wish to whitelist and play in those areas.
  9. Then it should be an encouragement, not a matter of policy.
  10. Why should we punish individuals for being concise? If there is a simple change with a very specific reasoning, it can be stated in one to two sentences. The "wait a day" thing would be hard to prove, but I think that would be fine.
  11. I completely agree with this. The addition of mice and drones able to combat each other is great- it would have no drawbacks but to increase roleplay. Three nests, however seems a bit much. A one group vs. one seems appropriate. On the topic of abilities, why can mice not see well in darker places? Good stuff.
  12. So I have been pushing for a good mouse and maintenance combined PR that will provide some much needed updates to the Mouse rp playstyle. If you are interested in this, please feel free to contact me within the mouse mains discord or via DM. Thanks!
  13. The classic "we're adults" narrative. Good to hear what I was expecting.
  14. Yeah pretty much. I just says 'em as I sees em. It's like a radar or a sixth sense. Retard sense, if you will. If I see something, and it is really dumb and stupid, I think, "Hmmph, that's retarded." and sometimes I will write that down on my keyboard and you may see it.
  15. A quick exercise in retardation: Now, a few entries on these are for legitimate discussion of the use of the word "retard" (mainly Chada discussing it with people), but the point is still clear. It is a word that is used a lot as a means to apply negative connotation to a sentence, subject, or sometimes person. I am okay with moderating the use of these types of things when in context to individual people. Such as saying, "Garnasacus is retarded."
  16. Certainly. The idea that my language choice offends someone so much that it necessitates a reporting or ruling process. Refer to my "where do you draw the line" post. This will continue to spiral (as it has been for a few years) to be more and more accommodating to individuals with paper thin skin. Yes, we're adults here (most of us), so sure- they can say "uSe ADuLt LaNgUAgE" but honestly just because I use certain words that offend people does not mean that the words need to be censored. A vocal minority of people being offended by the use of "retarded" "moronic" "asinine" "idiotic" and "dumb". I would understand if this were a specific thing such as "this is autistic" and someone with autism being offended. Being offended over such simple word choice is retarded in and of itself. People need to grow some fucking skin and realize people say words they may not like. By being so virtuous and high-horse about "well it is just not polite" or "i am above such peasantry language" is laughable. To be more direct with your question- They're both the same. One uses colorful language to get their emotional state across. Sure. People have a right to be offended, but they are most certainly choosing and seeking out things to be offended by. @Garnascus
  17. Alright. Clearly I am not swaying anyone here. This discussion is dumb so I'm gonna head out. Do not expect a reply.
  18. This is in reference to commentary on ideas and non-individuals. I am 100% for censorship of words people don't like in use when directed at individuals. Permitting it is moderated across the board and staff is accountable as well.
  19. Where do you draw the line? Retarded Moronic Idiotic Stupid Dumb Bad Dislike
  20. Well there you have it. You and I agree on something! I would call into question the role of a developer's responsibility to participate in community-oriented development. I do not like this trend of "i want to make a PR". You code it. You post it to pull. Users cannot talk about non-mechanic related things on the github, so we go to forums. Many of the controversial PRs posted do not receive any developer-feedback on the critiques made on the forums. I believe, that even when saying an idea is "retarded" or "dumb" that as long as the individual is not ad-hominemly attacking the developer, there should be a level of community-oriented development. There's no community involvement in many of your development processes. Maybe between other community members discussing things, but not that of the contributor. The very core of my complaint is revolving around the responsibilities of "developing". Do developers have a responsibility to address feedback, in any form, regarding their developments? According to Lord Fowl, as he explained above, he does not partake in discussion on the forum. Discussion concerning it on the discord is directed to the forums. Discussion about non-code on the Github is directed to the forums. Lord Fowl does not respond to the forums. Therefore, simply put, Lord Fowl does not at all address feedback or discussion during development. I would like clarification if this is expected or within good practices. This is the core of the issue, but once again- a larger picture is how he handled me pointing this out to him. He stated his reasoning for doing so was because myself, as an individual, made those critiques. Not because my critiques were out of scope, not because he does not partake in discussion (in which i call into question the responsibility to above), but because it was Zelmana making those statements. That, in my opinion, is completely contrary to staff practices. tl;read it anyway Are developers expected to interact with the community, or do we no longer do "community-oriented" development? Was the reasoning given behind not replying or partaking to critique to the PR in the only public and staff-enforced feedback area acceptable?
  21. The requirement of treating ALL ideas respectfully and not being able to call dumb or retarded ideas such is extremely hug-box. Easily-offended, "he said my idea was retarded >:(" should realize that this is not how the world operates. We are very much a hugbox already, but at a palatable level. Why put extra padding on the box we run around in, when people in the userbase should grow a tiny bit of thick skin? It seems there is a vocal minority complaining about the most mundane usage of "this idea is retarded, and here is why it is dumb".
  22. In my opinion, as long as the only thing that is being "attacked" is ideas given and points made in discussions, the response to that should be "reply and validate your points".
  23. I think an issue is that people have ad-hominem definition expanded to be entirely opposite of its definition. Ad hominem is an attack on one's character. Being upset that ideas are being attacked is the inverse of ad hominem.
  24. I think that a seperation between whether or not people are debating / attacking ideologies and views should be considered. There is a difference between attacking an individual and attacking an individual's thoughts and what they say. It should not be punishable to tell an individual that their idea is bad, nor should it be punishable to debate upon the idea.
  • Create New...