Zelmana

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.

Alright. So I've been a sec main for almost four years and a HoS main for maybe one (or even two? idk it's been awhile). Disclaimer, I use words like "fuck" and "retarded". This is because I like those words. You should not invalidate my opinion because I use words you do not like to describe my emotional state. I feel that this type of change will fuck with balance a lot. A majority of security work is patrolling. That means that at the top of the shift I as a HoS tell my different officers to go out on standard patrol routes and report back in situation updates every so often. Now, you may be thinking "doesn't this just remedy an issue- having them stationed in a department for patrols in the department itself?" And while that may be correct, it also fucks with balancing. It both numbs the nuts of HoS and organizational structure while simultaneously giving security all-access and too much physical oversight / antag detection. This gives security a lot of access into departments, no? I do not think it is very balanced to have all of security able to rush into research. Please correct me if I am mistaken. I do not think that having an officer sit in a small booth for a lot of the round is going to happen. This is wasted map space. Let's think for a moment- there's other HIGH TRAFFIC areas that have security places in them. The checkpoint for one of them. There's also a security booth up at Command. They're hardly used unless there is a checkpoint for departures. People (especially security mains running all over the station) have absolutely zero use for "an office to sit in". At most, one or two roles within the ISD are on camera-duty. Typically a cadet or a detective or similar. They can cover THE ENTIRE STATION from one camera console. Will this limit security's presence? For officers who are "assigned / requested" to the given departmental areas- I do not believe they will stay confined to those areas at all. People like variety. If they wanted to sit in medical all day they would play a medical character. A part of the security roleplay is going on station-wide patrols and roleplaying with characters from every single department many times throughout the round. Whilst a scientist roleplaying may typically only touch bases with another department a few times (say for resources, or for getting medical, or for engineering perhaps), a security officer will interact with the entirety of the crew throughout the patrol. Limiting security to singular areas of interest makes security a boring job. Pretty much the idea of all-access sec is retarded and there is very little implementable system beyond handing them fucking guest passes of something like a chemist if you're the "medbay department officer" On Numbing the nuts of HoS Furthermore, there is a large lack of HoS mains. Maybe 4-5. We do come on every now and then but I would say that the chance of you having a HoS is 50% (which may not be very present now / is skewed due to the graytide player pop increase at the time of this writing). Now, I do not wish to speak for all HoS (this is the part where I do), but I feel that those roles do not want to give "power" to the other departments over their officers. Are you joking? It's insulting, in my opinion, that you are nullifying and chopping the theoretical balls off of the HoS. I understand they will still have power, and will override any orders given to the "departmental officers", but the simple suggestion that a CMO can order an officer around their department is retarded to me. Yes, they are a member of Command and can give orders regardless, but this fuck-up on checks and balances where they can say "well they are my departmental officer" is going to show up. How would channels work? What is keeping these officers in their shitty little boxes up a staircase with no one to talk to? Have any of you guys +1'ing this even played Cadet? Oh, of course you have played all of those roles a few times. Which of you ENJOY playing security semi-regularly? You do realize that Security is not like medical sitting at a chair waiting for an alert to go off, right? This point is a repetition of some points made above, but all by itself to show you how stupid I think the disillusionment with the security playstyle is. A rant on "people don't like change" meme. I am tired of this meme where a concern is brought along the lines of "won't most people hate it" and the reply is "they just hate the change". Let me be clear- No, I, as well as many people trying to bring up valid points to any controversial change, do not hate just "change". I hate these changes. Changes that are just "let's completely fuck up balancing and rework entire playstyle" . When you are implementing a test change such as this one, and you receive negative, questioning, or divided responses on whether or not this is a good change, to answer those concerns with the non-answer of "change is going to be unliked- we're going to try the test!" is not very cool. I used to think that the 20% pay gap was the worst PR posted.

MBGA Make Borer Great Again!

Hey Nerdy, I totally misread that. That makes much more sense with the context. Thanks for pointing that out, it was a bit late when filling this out.

Feel free to ping me on Discord.

I'm going to keep my application fairly casual and straightforward, with some brisk responses. If you require any additional clarification or validation, please feel free to ask questions. CCIA Staff Application Basic Information Byond key: Zelmana Character names: Mains: Sean Brianne - Haughty HoS Benji Tiller - Terrible Telescientist Hatius Black - Busy Bureaucrat (IA) Cerebel - Positronic Psychologist Age:20 Timezone: EST (US) What times are you most available?: I typically play a lot on Monday and Tuesday for a lot of the day on and off. Wed-Fri I will play a bit less, maybe 2 or 3 rounds at night. Weekends I am available Saturday for a majority of the day. I am available nearly 24/7 on Discord (read: if i am awake i will reply). Experience How long have you played SS13?: Maybe a few months before my first join on Aurora listed below. How long have you played on Aurora?: 1376 Days ago. June 3, 2015 How active on the forums, discord and/or server are you?Extremely active on Discord. Some would say too active. With the new forums I am becoming slightly active. I am learning to not hate the forums as much as I did. Have you ever been banned, and if so, how long and why?:No Have you ever volunteered as moderation staff for any other servers, SS13 or otherwise?:No other servers. This server, yes. Do you have any other experience that you believe would be relevant to a position in the CCIA?: I'm good with corporate / legalese. I've done internal auditing as well as internal policy development for a Fortune 150. Personality Why do you want to join the CCIA?:I wish to join the CCIA because I really enjoy writing situation reports, analyzing the corporate regulations, and helping players when needed. I believe that I can resolve in character disputes very well. I have filed or assisted people filing IRs in the past. I think that the dynamic of helping in-character drama would be something I am much suited for than ooc things. What do you think are the most important qualities for a CCIA Agent to possess?:Writing skills, patience, understanding of regulations and when to show leniency. What do you think the purpose of a CCIA Agent is in an ongoing round?:Respond to faxes, possibly interview, provide end of round roleplay if possible, assist other staff in ahelp concerning regulations or corporate matters. What do you think the purpose of a CCIA Agent is outside of the server?: Outside of the server, I believe that a CCIA agent should assist the playerbase in understanding corporate regulations, work jointly with the wiki team to document them, and address lapses or breaks of regulations filed on the forums via IRs. How do you handle stress?: I believe that I can handle stress fairly well. When I believe that I am justified regarding something, I do stand my ground. How well do you work autonomously?: I feel that, if given specifications for the task, or guidelines to follow, I will be able to work well by myself. That is not to say, however, that I am incapable or cannot perform excellently without guidelines or procedures, but more that I prefer them. I feel that I would be able to work on in character things, making careful judgement, and complete tasks well without much supervision or cooperation. Additional Notes: Within the past few months I have been getting into some arguments within the political thunderdome that I believe I should address. I have come to terms that there is a very small group of users whom I clashed heads with on multiple occasions, causing me to lose my cool. I've gotten a strike or two because of this but I have taken the measures of not being active in that channel for a good few weeks, and I plan to continue to do so as a self check.

Right because unlike Gender, within our current lore setting there are basic and point-able reasons why certain species would impact the return of interest. It makes zero economic sense for (let me swap the equation) why men would be paid more if everyone at Nanotrasen is simply a number with measurable risk related to ROI.

Woosh!

That memey response "If women get paid less to do the same job" would be 100% applicable in a dystopian future that cares about nothing other than the bottomline / roi.

Yes because there is no economic incentive to do otherwise. If you can't do your job, or if someone else can do your job cheaper, you are replaced or do not have said job. It does not make economic sense for NT to have positions in which pay is determined via arbitrary variables; i.e. Gender.

An extremely profit-driven dystopic future would hire and pay 100% on merit alone. To infer that we are more than just numbers that are talent managed in a Corporate environment is ill-founded. Gender is out the window. Race would be a factor because in game race determines intellect, work, risk, and other factors. Gender doesn't make any sense. NT wouldn't give a shit about what's between someone's legs, they would care about their ROI and the risks involved in that ROI. Gender is not one of those risks.

Are we going to invalidate the valid opinion of this fucking up persistent economy? I would appreciate some valid discussion instead of people on Discord complaining that all of my opinions as an individual are invalidated because I used language that people do not like. Thus far a lot of negative feedback has been thrown out on the basis of "this is immature, ad hominem, invalid because it uses bad word, or is a GOT'CHA moment" (not an actual quote). Got'cha! No but please really would someone who disagrees with my point on this messing up persistent economy respond?

This sets us up for a retarded slippery slope if the NBT pulls through with persistent economy. unga bunga bad PR no like this or NBT

(Read in Ben Shapiro Voice:) I would think that the above quoted and overall liberalism present on station would be a result of self insert, not a result of "nice guy" syndrome.

All of those things above happen for legitimate reasons politically. This one literally makes zero sense to occur. Merit and risk based pay would be the only logical option for NT. Human and Skrell are paid more because they're smarter (skrell) or a result of the humanitarian viewpoint that has legitimate reasons as explained by lore.

Furthermore, does Nanotrasen give a shit? Do you think they are paying people based on gender or based by the singular thing they want as a morally-grey Corporation; results / merits?

One would wonder why everyone acts so liberal to the point of irritation.