AmoryBlaine

No. There's absolutely no way I would allow my work to be included in something actively designed to harm my enjoyment of the game.

Any questions?

Yes, they both for some reason really wanted to try and teargas you guys, even though you all had literal space suits on, and for the entire duration of our contact with you, it was either extremely close to one another, or through locked doors for both sides. How come no one can remember the reason you guys decided to board as traitors, nor whom suggested it. Everyone is giving conflicting responses on this, and it really cements my thoughts that the priority here was making sure that the TCFL being called wasn't just going to spend the rest of the round ghosted or talking with the crew. Mind you by the time we started fighting it was already 2:00, evident by the vote during the fight and you had arrived probably around 1:45 or so. So it wasn't as if the Ninja was killed at the 30 minute marker, or something. They went down at 1:36 I believe, though I may be wrong. This complaint is directed at Yonimmer so I'm more interested in why he thought approving the TCFL to attack the station so late in the round was a good idea, after the main antagonist had died.

Because, I am unsure of who did what and why. But what I am sure of, is you were a team. I do not even know which of the TCFL were each of you, until after I was killed and now. The point of listing the whole team, should be self evident- you are a team. How am I to know which of you did what and when, or why? If I am wrong in my assumptions, this holds no weight and you are fine. Evidently, that's not true, as @Dark1Star claims otherwise. He says it was his idea to go aboard, rather than the idea of any on station antagonists. That their agreement with the TCFL antag gimmick was just partial, and unrelated to their own gimmicks. from

I don't feel this justifies it, at all. Given that the ninja was killed taking out an Officer, entirely because of the ninja's own aggressive behavior towards the station and "no quarter" attitude. Also, as I now understand this WASN'T a traitor gimmick, but a gimmick made up by one of the TCFL, DarkStar, as stated above. The only one to leave and actually acquire a different weapon was myself, as I went to get the shotgun if things went poorly. The Captain gave a energy pistol to one of the officers and the other had a .45. Afterwards I gave a carbine which I had to the officer with the energy pistol. This is the initial shot, by your team, at us after you had C4'd the doors and started a breach. And below is what happened when KingofPing misfired trying to smash the beepsky unit. So no, Security did not shoot frst, whether the TCFL had accidentally fired or not, because even so, you had prior fired on us, as we stood looking at you through the doors. Specifically at an officer only armed with a .45. Can someone explain why they felt a need to fire on that officer, if the intent was to escape into maintenance?

This was not the initial engagement. This Was. And this was after you tried to vent the area and kill us, as well as blow a hole through the walls. So you're not sure as to what the gimmick was, or how you fit into it? I am not, either. Specifically because the TCFL did what they could to make sure we were not able to continue speaking with them. Not even when I, above, said to shoot at you, did we. Even after you had fired on us, we focused on evacuating the bridge (Which the TCFL had started a breach in), when the second primary fight took place directly outside of where we were able to evacuate towards, in your ambush, where you admit you accidentally discharged on us.

BYOND Key: AmoryBlaine Staff BYOND Key: Yonnimer Game ID: b1B-afZ9 Reason for complaint: Allowing poor conduct and facilitating the desires of combat oriented play, rather than RP. When the b1B-afZ9 TCFL decided that being denied a chance to fight the ninja wasn't going to stop them from getting a chance to fight something, they ahelped to be antags. Yonnimer made the judgement to authorize their antagonistic behavior. This isn't something I think staff should be doing, given it opens the door to allowing any spawned ERT to ahelp for antag status, if their chance at fighting antags is denied. I would really like to know why exactly this ERT was allowed to be antags. Was it because no one else has ever had the gall to ask if they can force combat and become the antags themselves before, or if it was simply because Yonnimer had a bias towards these specific players, or felt the round had stagnated in some way after the round antagonist had died. I have no real faith that Yonnimer will actually be discipled in any form, nor that this will be considered an offense- but I do think that at the very least his, and the teams behaviors are worthy of recording, for future instances of similar behavior.

BYOND Key: AmoryBlaine Accused Players Byond Key: ComradeCorbyn, KingofPing, Dark1Star Time of Act:10:45PM EST Reason for Ban: Poor behavior as ERT/TCFL, selfishness [IE; dickishness] in prioritizing their own goal of combat, over the station, and prior events in the round. Round is ninja. A little before the ninja kills them self and an officer, ending the on-board issues, Command requests additional support and the TCFL is rolled. The three above players are slotted as the team and, upon realizing there is no ninja, ahelp asking if they can become the antags. This is granted, by Yonnimer, who will have a separate staff complaint. Now, the main issue here as I see it is, these three were not interested in letting the round end, nor returning to their base and ghosting again, as everyone else does when they roll ERT and things are cleared up prior to their arrival. Nor were they interested in focusing on roleplaying with the station until transfer. They spawned for combat, they were denied it, they then ahelp in order to force combat, and were the first to engage. They can argue about escalation legitimizing it, but what it comes down to is they were dissatisfied by the lack of combat afforded to them, and went out of their way, to get special approval in order to create combat. It didn't matter that things were wrapping up, they wanted to fight. That is not behavior that should be tolerated, nor indulged by staff. The reason this is a ban request if I feel all three of them should be barred from ERT, if their main goal is to fight, rather than operate as a means to end the round when the timer is high, or generate RP between the station and antags (IE, not be the antags themselves, just because there are no others around.)

And that is why we should add him back. It'll be nice to see you moderating again.

Like I said about Nursie, just skip this step. Put him back as Admin. He can handle it, left of his own accord. Add him.

Cloning on station is already tedious and typically not done by the more experienced players, due to the limitations it puts on RP. (IE; being retarded for 35 minutes, needing brain surgery, needing a shrink on staff, that isn't also retarded, trying to justify ICly, why your recently dead character is willing to get back to work in under an hour.) As I see it, cloning as it is, is fine. If you're already willing to shrug off your character's death, the cloning-related RP, ect-- you really shouldn't be the focus of the server. The rest of us shouldn't have to suffer an inane mechanic that deletes our characters to make us fear death just because some people don't actually RP.

Your have a warped understanding as to what roleplay is. This suggestion has a heavy focus on OOC/player driven actions, rather than that of the characters. I really can't put any support behind this when it shows a very large disconnect with what roleplay is. It's the character's reactions that matter. Not our's. The interest in an action should not stem from OOC pressures. Like I said, gain a better understanding of how rounds go, and how people play, then consider how this strips away at RP.

Antagonists are non-canonical, it makes little sense to try and enforce a persistent fear from them, that transcends the round they are in. Again, this is a non-canonical occurrence. The station isn't actually nuked. So why then are people being punished due to a non-canonical occurrence. Forcing people to make new characters breeds shallow characters, as they are expected to be lost. The weight of a death is only something felt, when you have a connection. Something only useful for the first death, after-which you are going in with the expectation of losing the character. LRP servers enforce an RNG name system that forces players to lose their character names in order to help kill meta, which would work the same for us, but for RP. You'd not have the incentive of RP'ing past a very basic level, considering the lack of a guarantee that your character will actually be able to build inter-personal relationships. The suggested mechanic would detract from RP, in favour of OOC fear. Your account is new. Whom are you, if not a new player, inexperienced? The suggestion seems to point towards this.

This doesn't really make much sense, given this is a game based around majority non-canon events. Does this mean if I die to a traitor, I can't play my character anymore? If the mercs nuke the station, does that mean everyone has their characters deleted? This suggestion doesn't really seem to fit in with how the game operates. Why would we want people to have to constantly cycle through new characters? How does that help develop characters and further roleplay? This is an HRP server, it doesn't really make much sense then for the focus of 'fear' to be OOC, rather than roleplayed ICly. It's a total misconception as to what HRP is about. It's about feeling fear, it's about being able to roleplay out fear, and get your kicks that way. You shouldn't be forced to make decisions ICly, because OOCly your character will be erased. I suggest you play more on the server, to get a better grasp on how HRP works, in comparison to other servers.

Why would I make a player complaint, or a staff complaint for that matter, on something that has no actual rules in place over it? This is a poor line of thinking because it puts an emphasis on the player, rather than the lack of written policy.

I'm fascinated by the amount of people incapable of understanding what clones are. @ben10083 Why exactly would anyone need to memorize thousands of characters? What does checking all these thousands of characters have to do with noticing pattern behavior by individual players re-using their character? Now I understand this may be news to you, but currently we allow character clones if they aren't made with the specific intent of maliciously beating an IC suspension. How do I know? Because @DRagO Ruled as such. We had a Captain who exists because the player was requested to- OOCly- not play their recently promoted HoS as a Captain due to the IC implications of being promoted twice in a week. According to them, there was insufficient grounds for the player to be spoken to, because simply re-using the same sprite, and having an identical character for the purpose of playing that role, is not in of itself malicious. We have character clones often enough to have written policy on it. It is possible to have a standard, while also remaining incapable of acting on it. This is, as has been said, a minor issue. It wouldn't hurt anyone but those playing character clones. @Brutishcrab51 People do, do this. And it's not something being dealt with unless it is also in relation to other rule breaks.

Why are you so angry over this? What about this is causing you to lose your temper, when it's been nothing but civil discussion? You explode at me in the discord, and you explode at him here. How exactly is "We don't really care." far off from, "We don't view this as an issue." Do you view it with care? Is this something that concerns you? If so, why is it not an issue. You realize these words are interchangeable in the context, right? So why do you need to attack me and insult my IQ and act as though I'm far out of line for interchanging these words, when they convey the same meaning? You don't think this is an issue, your stance is, "Well I'm the Headmin." This doesn't convey caring. Maybe you're indifferent, but if that's the case- again- why are you exploding at us, specifically me? Right, because you don't like me. Well you don't see me acting like a fucking asshole, just because I don't like you.

@Garnascus "It's not an issue." "We can't actually do anything about this." So, again. Which is it more of?

@Garnascus You could at least try and answer the rest. So is this more of a "We don't really care." or "We can't actually do anything about this."

As I said originally " but as long as they each differed slightly, you would be able to get away with this. How would one go about proving they are the same? Spending their own time taking screenshots of text and reactions to different situations between these characters, in a hope of being able to cross reference and find enough similarities? Everyone knows they're the same, but due to the nature of this game and it's system for punishment, you'd need evidence. So, let's cut out this middleman." It's more so that in order to effectively ahelp and have this sort of behavior nipped in the bud, you'd need to have the player actively gathering information on the character(s), rather than just being able to do the more reasonable thing and say, "X and Y are the same character, literally just look at the sprite, they're played by the same player, it's not that hard of a jump to make. Tell them to stop." Maybe I'm an outlier, but I don't like having to prep my ahelps for a few days or weeks in advance. I still don't really understand the arguement of, Why is the OOC comfort of the player being considered when creating the IC look of a character they intend to play? This behavior would suggest a deeper attachment to that character, meaning every time they replicate it, they're likely replicating the same character traits, subconsciously or not. Or maybe, I'm being unreasonable, in my assumption that if they're subconsciously projecting a comforting design, they might also project comforting traits.

Why would this impact me? Because as a player, you're expected to interact with these clones. I've yet to meet a character clone that was not the same as the original, with the exceptions being slight differences in behavior, but all the while being very clearly the same character. Sprite simplicity, is all the more reason why we shouldn't encourage repeat use. This is not a text-only game, there's a reason more than half the screen is of sprites.

It is not new players. And, it's really only a niche because usually people who do this end up being banned eventually. It's hardly about being a roleplayer, honestly. I am not very good at roleplay, but I at the very least go out of my way to make sure my characters are not the same person. And the first step in doing this, is making them all physically different. There's a large difference between two different player's characters looking the exact same, and the same player's characters looking exactly the same. I would say this policy is in the same camp as people who make a family of brothers and sisters, rather than actually branch out.

Typically these sorts of characters do not actually have any flavour text. A testament to the amount of thought and detail put in when copy-pasting your character to a new character slot. Though, I would not say keeping the exact same sprite while changing the flavour text would exempt one from my ruling on it. If you use the same character sprite, it's cloning the character nearly every single time. Maybe there's an outlier of an outlier where you just can't be assed to edit the sprite variables, but are willing to write up new FT, but I find that unlikely. Sprites are avatars, for the flavour text, and character one is playing as. If you are repeatedly using the same sprite, that more than likely means you, yourself, are identifying as the sprite. That's not to say you look like the sprite, but it becomes a calling card for you. Or, you're just too lazy to change the sprite. Either way, I don't think it should be happening. That was in regards to, 'less than malicious' reasons for re-using the same character sprite.

You've begun playing a Captain, which is your HoS, but with a different name. I presume this was in response to the request that you not play your HoS as a Captain after such a brief period of being a HoS since that would mean an IC promotion from Officer/Warden to HoS to Captain in under a week. I'm not sure how or why that'd be okay, but it doesn't tell me anything good about how you perceive the game. Other than that, your behavior as HoS has been alright. I wouldn't say it was exceptional, as I have seen you spend a fair bit of time armed and ready for action, rather than focusing on administrative duties, all the while there being a full or nearly full roster of Officers. My suggestion would be to refocus, and coordinate the team,oversee them, rather than do any actual fighting yourself. Frankly, though, I cannot put my support behind someone who is willing to make a second character which is the same as their first, just to play a role they were told they ought to not until a reasonable amount of time passed. -1