Zelmana

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.

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.

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.

Then it should be an encouragement, not a matter of policy.

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.

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.

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!

The classic "we're adults" narrative. Good to hear what I was expecting.

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.

Did you miss that whole

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."

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

Alright. Clearly I am not swaying anyone here. This discussion is dumb so I'm gonna head out. Do not expect a reply.

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.

Where do you draw the line? Retarded Moronic Idiotic Stupid Dumb Bad Dislike

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?

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".

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".

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.

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.

As long as this is in regards to people attacking individuals, and not ideas in feedback threads, I am really behind this.

BYOND Key: ZelmanaStaff BYOND Key: LordFowlGame ID: DiscordReason for complaint: Alright my dudes. I'm gonna be straight forward with this complete so we can stop fiddling our dicks and get back to staffing / moderating / beating graytide chromedomes in. Lord Fowl posts a lot of controversial PRs and therefore receives a lot of criticism, as any Dev does. However, I believe that it is the responsibility and within the roles of a developer to take into account user-feedback and criticisms. Even before a PR or Test PR is rolled out, the creation of forum threads for feedback and discussion are often created by contributors. I believe in the intention of creating these threads, there is a responsibility for the individual to reply to genuine criticism or points given. There are, of course some exceptions to this, such as criticisms or points simply given out of spite, or those criticisms or points that fall entirely out of scope for the thread created. This is a complaint regarding the "Departmental Security" project thread, in which the proposed PR is up for discussion in many topics such as balancing, impact on players, capabilitiy, etc. I created a 958 word reply, separated by topic, on why said contribution would be detrimental and overall negative for the server and playerbase. Yes, I use the word "retard" within my critique. Knowing that I would most likely be ignored for this, I posted a request that contributors do not invalidate or ignore my critique based on the rare usage of "retarded" or calling the substance of the contribution "shit". I did not ad-hominem against the contributors, and focused solely on their creations, which, in my opinion, are bad. I didn't get any response at all. While discussing the topics within Discord (as one does) we often get pointed back to the thread of discussion (where one should shitpost and complain about PRs.) I mentioned that the developer does not intend to reply to my legitimate criticism. The following conversation happened: If this was the case, they would not ignore me, and would address the points of genuine grievance that I have brought to the thread. Since they refuse to acknowledge myself as an individual, they use this as justification for invalidating any genuine criticism I have for the changes being proposed. They are, in a way, judging my content on an ad-hominem fallacy. They refuse to address points of genuine concern and critique due to the individual making the points. While the thread in question is not created by Lord Fowl's, it is the discussion thread being used for their PR. The fact that a developer ignores all criticism and critique within discussion threads of their own PRs, as well as the reason for ignoring being based in ad-hominem and not addressing the subject of the argument given by the one critiquing, is retarded. These are developers, yes their primary purpose is to develop. But that takes community feedback. I have been told many times that Github is not the place to discuss critiques of the PR, but purely mechanical / code related issues and bugs, and whether or not it implements correctly into the game. Continually, we are told to post to the forums (then linked to the thread) to discuss the topic when we are discussing it on the forums. In conclusion, We are told to post to Github only items pertaining to code / implementation ability. We are told to take conversations about PR to relevant threads on the forums when discussing it within the Discord. The developer in question is outright nonresponsive and does not engage in community-oriented development discussions on the forums. Many times their reasoning, as evidenced in the above conversation, is purely ad-hominem based, and does not seek to address critique as critique, rather "I am ignoring you because you are <user>." instead of "I am not addressing you because of your points are out of scope." I believe this issue has been brought up other times in past staff complaints, but I may be wrong. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Picture, for a moment, being assigned to Cargo for the duration of the shift. You may then understand the problem of this PR.

"Security is not about winning, it's about roleplay." You are very true. I am tired of roleplaying as a HoS with only one officer because all of the Sec Mains got pulled into a 6-antag merc squad. I am very good at roleplaying not winning. We lose a lot.

Basically, people often play security to walk and patrol around the entire station, and to respond to antagonists. That is the role. You are attempting to change the entire playstyle and many people will not like it. Not because "people do not like change" but because you took their role that they enjoy playing and changed it nearly completely.