AmoryBlaine

So what is the current standing on this sort of thing? Like, as of right now. Just so we know where we're at.

I mean, honestly, what this is for me is I just absolutely hate seeing new Sec players jump around the department willy-nilly. Established players usually have months between their character's promotions or additional training in order to become a Detective from Officer, or Warden from Officer. But we get new people who join in as Officer, then Warden, the Detective. And currently you can't really say "hey, that's not reasonable." because it's technically allowed in our current system as long as they're old enough, so these players learn that jobhopping is okay, which detracts from the immersion, in my opinion. Like, I'm fine with Noir being an Officer and Detective because they've been working with NT for forever, and are an IPC. But there's so many instances where it's just like- why, are you jumping from Detective to Officer, and then to Warden? You haven't even learned your initial role, yet you've gone to taking up multiple others all under the same character all within two weeks?

Please add

So, basically. Officer to Warden, Warden to Officer, Officer to Detective, Detective to Officer, Detective to Forensics, Forensics to Detective, Warden to HoS, HoS to Warden. It's very tiresome seeing the same characters jump all over the department. Is there any way to we can better regulate who can go where? Officer to Warden, Warden to Officer- that makes sense. They're Brig Officers after all. Investigative to Security, is not so reasonable given their duties and requirements are seperate. The closest a warden has to do with investigative is know where to put evidence and how to store it properly. I notice a lot of Detectives and Forensics jumping from their position into Officer, or Warden and then back again. Frankly, I don't think it should be allowed. Voice opinions, please.

What does the current form of Cult do to encourage engaging with cultists?

It should only track for maybe 2 tiles in any direction. Vomit isn't exactly like blood or oil.

The PR can change. Again, did humans just forget about basic firearms once they'd designed more complex weapons? Who's using this? It's not anyone rich, or proper military. It's raiders, poor frontiersmen, ect.

I don't see why both can't exist, given the one you added is specifically a Tajara weapon. Did humans just forget about basic bolt-action rifles once they started making more complex weapon systems? The only people using these on server are raiders. I have no idea as to what this is referring to as nearly everything in this thread is to bump up the quality of the current items with the only exception being the bolt action rifle, which you cannot see here past an in-hand sprite.

The bulky is the industrial hardsuit. Th yellow and purple are propositions for the voidsuit.

Security has two uniforms. Well, three. But the blue and white uniforms are essentially the same aesthetic but to break up the monotony. So really it's the 'professional' uniforms- blue and white, and the tactical uniform- black. If anyone tries to tell me the corporate uniform is formal, I'll beat you up.

Well, the reason is everyone else is allowed to just wear their own clothing if they don't want to wear their uniform. Also, you usually don't see Doctors, or Scientists wearing hats.

It likely won't be actually black. Black Sec is not something I think many people want to see because of the connotations it carries. We'll see, though.

I'm gonna be changing that beret you have there. We already have a blue one and it's more in-line with Security's blue. So, I'll likely make this one darker, or something.

I'm only familiar with Klementine Kuznetsov and Zoya Kuznetsov,but I've not had any distasteful interactions with Hepatica, rather the opposite. No comment on their understanding of IPC lore, as I have a very basic understanding.

Bump.

Why should I trust either you, or Fowl- or frankly anyone on the staff team- to not be purposely trying to fuck with me? This is why I don't trust this system to begin with. I know I fucked up, but I do think you write notes for any reason you want- that's exactly why half the time anyone asks for their notes, they're denied a viewing. Because notes exist as a means of justifying staff to do stuff like this. Why are we not allowed to contest them? They're vague, in order to be repurposed as evidence of patterns of behavior even if the incident they're being applied to isn't anywhere similar. You want to pretend that what I was saying to that guy in LOOC was so mean- at most it was a bit rude, I'm not the one swearing or calling people cunts there. I was told there was zero issue with him re-purposing his name, LadyFowl chose to focus on my ahelp from the view of whether or not it's okay to intentionally keep re-using your name, when- evidently- he was just unaware of how to fix it. I don't think Fowl intended to educate the player on how to go about changing their name, nor alleviate my misinterpretation of the situation as the player intentionally keeping their name across characters, because they didn't intend on actually helping me at all but rather just telling me that it's okay to re-use your character name as your off-station antag name, and then re-joining the round later as the same name but as your station character- nevermind the fact that this player clearly was not aware of how to fix the problem, and simply stating that would have actually handled my ahelp. They do this fairly often- a lot of staff do. They take my ahelp then try to twist it around, or misinterpret parts, or focus on portions and then I tell them to close it. Because I know they're just fucking with me, and have no intention of actually helping. The fact that they chose to approach the situation in this manner, is evidence of their malicious intent. They wanted to make sure I didn't fully understand why the player did what they did, they wanted to make me feel as though I was wrong in my suspicion of there being something wrong about the use of the name repeatedly, when I wasn't entirely wrong because the player was just misinformed.

Neither note had any actual description, as to obfuscate what happened in each case. What is clear is both instances are seemingly written as though I am a partial victim. Now knowing that Drago had direct involvement in a prior case I have even more suspicion that this was malicious because of how easy it would be to use the similarities between the prior note and the current situation to create a narrative.

No, I don't trust you- you want to say I went after them and followed them- I was already there, they walked to where I was. You were already creating a narrative to back up your decision. So I know you have something against me, otherwise you wouldn't have started making up a narrative. I know everyone here has something against me, or is just trying to use me for some end. I don't trust you- you even lied to me in the ahelp saying it wasn't an issue, when clearly it was given you now claim to have talked to the player and figured out why their name was what it was. Even then, given I was WATCHING them set up for the gimmick earlier in the round and did not see the player attempt to fix the name, I have every reason to question why they didn't just change their name, and doubt it was a bug. Later in the round when the player in question was swapped out the new terminator was given a name prompt, so it was not bugged but just a failure to communicate. Given how easy it was for them to give the next player a name prompt. Or maybe they changed it directly. I don't know, but I do know they fixed their name. And yeah, I did DM you. And never again, because you fabricated a narrative in order to ban me, and that's not something I think a person without a strong distaste for another does.

BYOND Key: AmoryBlaine Staff BYOND Key: Drago, or Lord Fowl Game ID: Reason for complaint: Falsely claimed I had gone out of my way to confront someone on an ahelp'd issue that was deemed not an issue. I had ahelp'd a player having used their character name as raider, and then again as a terminator as part of a gimmick. When I ahelp'd I was told this was totally fine, and there was nothing wrong with it. I told Drago to close the ahelp, and they did so. I ran into the player because they were gearing up and I was checking on the armory returns at the end of the round. I asked them why they'd use it repeatedly over multiple characters and then rejoin into the same round as the same character after they were swapped out earlier in the round. They said they didn't have a choice with the name, I said "Don't you know how to change it?" and that he should ahelp if he doesn't know how to do something but knows there's an issue and he said he did, he clearly did not given he had the same name. At that point, Drago took the opportunity to instruct me not to talk to them in LOOC. My issue wasn't handled, and the player was clearly not aware of how to change their name. Drago then banned me for being a dick. I'm fairly certain Drago did this specifically as an attack on me, as she was able to use my prior notes against me for arguing in LOOC. The fact that this LOOC interaction was literally just me asking them why they would do something, and why they didn't just ahelp or know how to change it themself- that this is what is considered faux pas, when the other actual notes are for actually arguing and swearing- it's literally picking at anything similar to my history in order to ban me. Additional remarks:

Reporting Personnel: Daniel Carmichael Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Security Officer Game ID: b4u-az7t Personnel Involved: - Alexander Volvalaad, Captain, Witness - Mo'zazi Zuhare, Head of Personnel, Offender Secondary Witnesses: (Name, Job Title: Short description of what they witnessed) - Zahid Mrakiizar, Head of Security, Witness Time of Incident: Real Time: 11:38PM-EST 30/11/19 Location of Incident: Security Comms Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [ ] - Neglect of Duty [ ] - Harassment [ ] - Assault [ x ] - Misconduct [ x ] - Other: Slander Overview of the Incident: The Head of Personnel made a slanderous remark that I had ingested an intoxicating drink while on duty, over Security Comms. They claimed after I had reported the incident to the Captain, that this was a joke, but did not communicate this to me directly, nor the rest of Security. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: Alexander Volvalaad, Captain. Actions taken: N/A Additional Notes: N/A

You can find wormhole jaunters that can, and likely do, fatally teleport those who enter into space. Though, in regards to the shit that spawns in maintenance- why does it spawn there in the first place. It's clearly NOT for the antags without uplinks or agent IDs, who are now purposely kept from ease of access as per the latest response by the PR creator in this thread. Of the antags who do have ease of access, they also get access to higher quality items or the same items as those that spawn.

Thanks! Saves me the time of begging someone to do this exact thing. Needless to say, I support this.

What do you like about it? What changes to 'their' playstyle do you suggest? Why did you feel a need to berate Security players with the sentence, "Hopefully something other than run at antag and end round for valid! Must WIN!"

Really good. Looking forward to seeing them in game.

So essentially what it is, is the cloak with a good which also has a mask. That's it. But this is what it looks like with all the other crap piled together.