driecg36

Negotiate with what exactly? The captain at the vault we could only open without your help? The captain after she died because an idiot busted the window? Negotiate for more money with the gold and money we had stolen? Negotiate to return the hardsuits you'd just use against us? And I was more so paying attention to security, but Kill-gore and Jack Sender both seemed pretty clueless, but not nearly enough to warrant a full blown player complaint.

3 of the six raiders were already in the elevator trying to go down, as I was blocking the door to wait for the last raider who had been left behind. We had what we wanted right under our noses, in the vault. Again, how do you think the other raiders have reacted if I said "Wait let's negotiate with them" considering you had literally nothing to give us that we couldn't easily take? It's a lot easier to convince people to leave once we have an accomplished objective compared to switching objective mid-hostage situation, especially when our original objective is near achieved. And in what way does us running to our deaths against two durands and an ERT further RP? Exactly. You keep implying we acted in an lrp manner, all the while encouraging us to act in an LRP manner. What exactly is HRP about fighting an extremely powerful enemy for virtually no reward, when we had already accomplished our objective? It's absolutely fucking stupid ICly, not believable whatsoever, and would've resulted in nothing more than a short firefight where a shit ton of people died for nothing. Quite frankly this is getting nowhere, as you seem absolutely set in your opinion that we purposefully made a shit round for you and security, and I seem absolutely set in my opinion that it was a set of unfortunate circumstances that led to little interaction. How about we just wait for an admin to review the facts and settle this impartially, rather than waste our time repeating the same points over and over again?

Notice how I said ex-con, not felon. And honestly, I think including crime that isn't traitor/antag related would be interesting. Ofc, it would be extremely difficult to implement correctly and would require some colossal reworks to how the game works, so those are far flung theories and not relevant to the point at hand. But in short, not all ex-cons are felons but they sure wouldn't be hired on the crown jewel of NT at all.

So, as you may have forgotten, our team was very divided, and we could barely agree on the most simple gimmick. I offered multiple times to go back onto the station, even after the ERT had come, and got a resounding "No." In answer every single time. Coming up with a brand new gimmick mid-round is difficult even with a cohesive team. On top of that, I had skimmed the contracts before, and none seemed very interesting or even had the relevant crew on station, though I may very well have been wrong. Again, I don't believe you should act stupid just for the sake of "interaction," a point of view I believe you've expressed before. We have the captain, the objective we've set for ourselves is right there, and you expect all of us to be coordinated enough to switch our gimmick and negotiate, even with no logical reason to do so whatsoever mid hostage situation? Hell, we could barely get the entire team on the fucking elevator. The "Muh Durand" is still a valid argument because we don't know where it is. We could jump around and risk running into it headfirst, or being cornered by it and the ERT, or being attacked by security, or getting stuck somewhere, but for what possible Icly reason? If you wish, I can flip this on security as well. Instead of simply bouncing their head against the vault doors, they could've looked for our point of entry (which was extremely obvious considering we broke the cameras there) and set up there. Or considered the notion that we wouldn't just go immediately back up the elevator while we had no hostage, and thought about alternatives. Or called ERT earlier than after the captain was dead and our objective was completed. Interaction is a two way road.

Right, so rather than try to RP you went straight to the vault so you could cut out the middle man and get right to the loot. The Durand is such a small part of this as you were already EVA. How exactly does this pose a threat to you EVA and while able to jump between decks with the skiff? How the hell is it RP to ask for you to open the vault, even though we know full well you cannot, and we can? I simply fail to see a logical reason to do so. And we're EVA, sure, but why would the Durand ever come out to EVA with us? We'd have to go into the station where we would get slaughtered by it and the ERT. On top of that, you've yet to provide me a single good icly reason to go back after we had looted the vault.

Right, guess who had the captain's headset during this entire exchange? I'm sure you can. By the time someone competent actually got their hands on comms, the captain was already dead. On top of that, we were *right* next to the vault, with the captain's ID (the only ID that can open the vault, by the way). Additionally, command had been discussing calling the ERT pretty much as soon as we left the vault. Pretty certain ERT was already on the table during that exchange. And how the hell would we know that sec didn't know about the durand?

I mean, to offer an IRL example, I very much doubt Disney or Amazon have ex-cons working at their HQ, even in extremely menial jobs. It would also be logical, considering Aurora is the "face" of NT, that only very loyal or positive employees would get assigned there to display a more positive image, rather than those that are in open dislike of it.

Right, so I was one of the raiders, Red-Tails. I will start this off with immediately saying this wasn't a good round. We had great difficulty choosing a gimmick and took very long to get ready and leave. We eventually decided on going with a barebones gimmick of raiding the vault by kidnapping the captain and taking their ID, since we could agree on nothing else. Not particularly interesting, but it was an objective. From there, literally everything proceeded to go perfectly for us, which was rather unfortunate OOCly. The captain was alone in her office, noone came by the bridge as we were kidnapping her, security's response was very slow when they learned she was captured, and only one armed officer showed up to the scene (who immediately gave up his weapon when asked, because we had the captain hostage.) We then proceed down the vault elevator with the captain (after one of the less intelligent raiders pistol whipped her, despite us yelling at him not to multiple times). We hack into the vault, and block the elevator doors with our bodies. We RP a bit with the captain, she tries to escape, we secure her. Eventually, someone in the vault finds an RCD and walls off the elevator (I would rather they have not but whatever.) We loot everything, then we see an officer go down a ladder in the vault. Jack Sender, I think it was, panics and breaks open a window to escape, killing the captain (despite us telling him not tom multiple times, I believe we even informed an admin about it.) Now, we are left with two options: A) Go up the elevator into an inevitable ambush and get slaughtered by security, but we "interact" in the loosest definition of the word. B) Go out the window and to the medical sublevel to escape, which was by far the smarter, more believable option. We go back up the command elevator, completely unmolested by security or anyone else, and make it to the shuttle. We then go to mining, because we need an 02 tank and a cell charger. We run into two miners, we threaten them not to reveal our location, and they don't. We take our charger and an 02 tank after breaking into mining. Now, we are back onto our ship, and we hear that not only an ERT has been called, but a Durand has been constructed with a second one underway. Sure, our gear is pretty good at this point, but look at the following options: A) We go back on station, fight the ERT+durands+sec, most likely lose some members or die outright, for extremely meager rewards, as we've already taken the most valuable things on station. More "interaction," but effectively suicide. B) We leave, our objective accomplished. All in all, the problem was that everything went right. I believe you also believe this [mention]AmoryBlaine[/mention], but people should not act stupid just to further RP. And here, the only way to further RP was to act extremely, unbelievably dumb. I really don't think there was another way possible to create more interaction unless we had a complete different gimmick, though I may of course be wrong.

Having it be a major trading hub could easily allow VIP's to visit. It would still be very important to NT operations without being their crown jewel. You see, I'm not talking only about extreme, rule breaking incompetence (which is going to happen all the time anyway, even if it's against the rules and gets ahelped every time it happens). I was more so thinking the more run of the mill incompetence, which is neither against the rules nor particularly unbelievable, but is kind of jarring when it happens regularly on the crown jewel of the biggest corporation in the galaxy. In a more average trading hub, it would just make more sense that not everyone isn't the best in their field. Again, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be allowed on the station without EXTREME background checks, research, and investigation into their past making it near impossible to enter the station with anything worse than a spotless record (I'm talking about non-antags here). Also, there is a middle ground between murderer and straight edge, but you wouldn't logically see that middle ground on supposedly the most important research station in the galaxy. Fair argument. I never wanted to boost security to ERT tiers, just mention the dissonance that comes with not having the best possible team for your most important station, which seems logical even if it's excessive. This is a whole different issue, yes. Sure, sometimes research isn't empty, but by making the station a trading hub, you really don't have to sacrifice anything from research at all and you can still add a lot of different stuff on top of that. I think you misunderstood me, here. When I said not cream of the crop, I didn't mean bad, uninteresting characters. We have those in spades already. I meant more varied characters, that aren't always the top of their field who've gone to the best academy in the galaxy. Sure, we have those already, but they've always felt out of place to me. We really can't have believable delinquent characters, and a lot of otherwise intersting chars have to do mental gymnastics to justify why they would be on aurora station in the first place (a noble dominian who hates NT would be more likely to end up at a trading hub than their crown jewel, for one example). I suppose that's another issue entirely, and an inevitable one at that considering that the game is locked to this one location. Still, I hold on to my argument. A trading hub has a lot more room for varied characters, roles, gimmicks, and events than the most important research station in the galaxy does.

[mention]Senpai Jackboot[/mention] I actually think that the fact that aurora station is *the* flagship station of NT is really bad for RP and character diversity/credibility. If aurora station is the flagship research station, then why would so many people who are obviously either utterly incompetent, deranged, or otherwise disabled be hired? Why would any seedy or criminal elements be allowed within miles of it? Why doesn't it have a more effective security force like Odin? Why is research almost always empty? The concerns go on and on. Personally, I think having aurora as a trading hub/mining asteroid (perhaps a major one but certainly not *the* trading hub) would really help things not only make a lot more sense Icly. It would make the inevitable incompetence of the crew much less jarring, allow for more varied characters that are not always the cream of the crop, and it would generally allow for a lot more room in terms of events and future development options that don't have to work within the narrow constraints that a research station that should SUPPOSEDLY be maximum security currently has. Research doesn't have to be eliminated, but in all honesty it it's a relatively minor department compared to the others already. Just my two cents.

Reporting Personnel: Francois Leonce Rank of Reporting Personnel: Captain Game ID: bTG-a35M Personnel Involved: -Jimmy Foxton- Offender, Scientist -Michael Raymond- Witness, HoS -Jin Tao- Witness, Detective -Emily Smith- Witness, CSI -Julzian Inzatias- Victim, Bartender Time of Incident: Around 22:00. Real time: EST: 1 AM, 4/2/2018 Location of Incident: Research, Bar Nature of Incident: [X]Workplace Hazard []Accident/Injury []Destruction of Property []Neglect of Duty [X]Harassment []Assault [X]Misconduct [X]Other: Terrorist Threats Overview of the Incident: The incident began when Mr. Foxton was frequenting the bar, when the bartender kicked him out for misbehavior (the nature of which I did not have the opportunity to discover). He threatened the bartender with a pipebomb were he not let back into the bar; considering his access to toxins - which had produced a bomb large enough to damage cargo from the test site - this was taken extremely seriously. Smith has a partial audio recording of this first threat as well. He then ran to toxins, and was arrested there by security. He claimed to have accomplices who would detonate other bombs, planted around the station at various high traffic areas, were he not released shortly. In interrogation with detective Tao, he claimed that four bombs existed and that he had two accomplices. He also voiced cryptic commands and instructions to his "collaborators" in science comms. Once I arrived and spoke to him myself, he claimed to have lied about all the previous threats, attributing the later, more extreme ones to his fear of borgification (one would think deescalation would be wiser in those circumstances). No bombs were found or detonated, so it is safe to assume he was indeed lying about these threats. Foxton is evidently somewhat unhinged (we had a psychiatrist come and see him, though I cryoed before I could be informed of the results), and should not be allowed to work in research, much less with dangerous equipment. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: Colette Peterson, IAA, Edgar Dawnguard, RD Actions taken: Foxton was suspended by Dawnguard, charged by security with i115 and i213, and Peterson needed to cryo before she could file a report, which I am doing in her stead. Additional Notes: Foxton caused both the security team and the station an enormous hassle over a non-issue. I recommend he either be terminated (considering his empty employment records), or reassigned to a non-critical, low danger job outside of research.

delet the cat Ok no Sokolov is pretty cool, haven't messed much with wendigo (except that one time I "accidentally" Ioned her.)

+1 from me if the items are listed as generic. It's annoying that pockets are magical stealth portals even when you're staring straight at someone, right next to them.

I understand completely. I'm glad this was discussed, and I hold no ill will towards Noah.

I was not the one you were targeting, and I disagree with having only one or two characters, so the argument of outrage culture is rather irrelevant to me. I was just using the term's literal definition: an attack against the person, not their argument. Had you used in a way that was of more value than "We shouldn't cater to the type of person," I would not have brought it up. I more so took issue with you implying all people in favor of "job-hopping" were people who had no flexibility and no creativity, and when you consider that that is false, it's obvious it was simply an attempt at discrediting the opinions of those you disagree with. I can almost guarantee you will disagree with my personal case (since, not to be pretentious, I think I am the immediate cause of this whole fiasco), and upon seeing the arguments in this thread, I can see why you would. Honestly, I also agree that simply switching to another job in another department is poor form, and I have agreed to not do it again. I would like to say that the argument of power-gaming is moot unless the person specifically powergames with it, which would evidently not be in this gray area we're arguing over. If a HoS were to pick say, bartender, and then run around with his shotgun, demand access, and valid hunt, that would be a problem. However, how would a HoS mixing drinks in the break room be considered powergaming, if it makes sense with their character? It gives them no edge, and once again, isn't unrealistic. People know how to mix drinks and cook food on top of regular careers. And I also partially disagree with your argument of flaws. I agree, flaws must be present in a character to make them believable and interesting, but it's not like a point based system where the character with the most flaws (blind, deaf, quadruple amputee tajara transgendered muslim woman that only speaks sign language would be a top tier character if that were so) is the best. That's asinine, and I don't think you were going for that point, but you did forget to make the distinction that flaws need to be interesting and believable in themselves as well. My character, Leonce, has flaws. He's not ultra robust (mostly my fault), a little hot headed, and very stubborn. He also tries very hard to avoid lethal force, and if under too much pressure he snaps. He also happens to know bartending, because he wants to own a bar after he retires. It may not be the most interesting character, but it's a believable one and most certainly not a mary sue. However, I think the best point you've made so far is company policy. I can definitely see why NT would act the very same way as your bar and grill does when it comes to work. I agree that that would be a problem that an IRL NT would take issue with. However, and I hate to do this, I have to play the "Gameplay vs. Realism" card here. There are a COLOSSAL amount of things that go on station that no company would EVER allow in the real world, but are allowed in game for the sake of gameplay and because of the fact that people effectively exist only on the station in 2-4 hour shifts, and then disappear for the rest of the time. If exceptions are made for these other things, why not for this as well? What's more interesting; a character that says they cook/bartend at home, and has a note in their employment records that noone ever reads, or a character that actually bartends every once in a while? I think the answer is pretty obvious. And for the scam thing, the visitors would not be getting paid anyways since they are on leave. They aren't full-time soup kitchen workers, they are PART TIME VOLUNTEERS. They make their money from their main job, and work their hobby job because they enjoy said work, not because they want money. The pay difference actually works in the favor of the job hoppers here, since heads would have enough of a bank account (and more than enough reason to take a shift off every so often) to afford to do this. And for the reasons you stated above, NT would not replace their trained, certified bartenders and chefs for volunteers, because the latter simply are not only vastly less qualified, but also not nearly as available as they work their main job.

I don't think making an ad-hominem and accusing people who want to job hop of a lack of flexibility makes for a very good argument, first of all, and you are heavily simplifying the reasons why people would want to "job-hop" by simply saying "they're not creative or flexible enough to make more characters." I have I think about 11 characters, 6 or so I play regularly. I have both a skrell and an IPC whitelist. I don't job hop to bartender because I'm too lazy to make a bartender character, or I don't have the creativity to make a new one. I do it because it makes sense for that character, and I want to interact with others with him in a way that doesn't involve cuffs, injunctions, and lasrifles. Sure, I could make another character for bartender, I have a few ideas. However, I don't think they would be as interesting for me to play, or even for those who rp with me, as an already established character. That's not to say you should play the same character for every role, I'm just saying that if the skill-gap is reasonable there should be no reason to heavily restrict it. However, you make a valid argument in the fact that those characters are "taking the jobs" of dedicated bartenders, and I agree that that is an issue. However, I do think [mention]alexpkeaton[/mention]'s suggestion elegantly solved this problem by making a distinction between "official" bartenders and "volunteer" bartenders. Having the HoP give bartender/ a volunteer title would solve the job taking issue, the pay gap issue, and the realism issue, as it would be exactly what it is on the tin: a volunteer hobby, not a career shift or a job-hop. *EDIT* After re-reading Delta's posts, I have another point to make. Having cooking or bartending be a hobby is EXTREMELY reasonable. People do it IRL literally all the time, and the only way to express those is by EXPLICITLY doing the same things that a full-paid person would do, albeit perhaps less well. The full-job holding person would still get to decide if they wanted a helping hand or not, naturally, and would not have their pay docked or anything of the sort. And they would not be "active employees" either, just volunteer helpers. They would not be on the payroll or anything of the sort, which is more than reasonable if you ask me.

I think you can still make a perfectly reasonable character that job hops, while there are unreasonable characters that play exclusively one role. I think the two are unrelated, and unreasonable examples of the former are simply a symptom of the latter. Perhaps I'm biased, but I believe my HoS is a realistic character. He isn't the veteran three wars, he doesn't have 300 confirmed kills, he's just good at his job, which is internal security. He had training to deal with dangerous situations, but he never goes full rambo (partially because I'm unrobust) and always relies on his officers. Despite all of this, his passion is bartending and he wants to open up a bar after he retires. I don't believe there's anything unrealistic about him working as a bartender on the station he works at regularly. I played a full round, where I roleplayed with many prominent members of the community (most off duty heads themselves, ironically), some of which were staff. Nothing was unbelievable or immersion breaking about my character. I'd argue that characters with ridiculous backstories are much more immersion breaking than those who reasonably job hop, but they are less "noticeable" so I feel like they get less flak.

I feel like I should link the community discussion on this issue, since this event seemed to have sparked it: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=10169

Exactly. This should be judged on a case by case basis. Is it believable? Does the character have a motivation to do it, financial or otherwise? A broad net would catch a lot of people that have perfectly reasonable reasons to "job hop," and wouldn't drop the amount of snowflakery or unrealism on the server by a significant level.

I completely disagree with banning high ranking individuals coming on board as visitors, or other jobs, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. These characters often don't have the time to really bond with anyone or talk with their coworkers, because they are constantly being pelted from all sides by work that needs to be done and issues that need to be solved. Banning high ranking crew from entering other, more relaxed positions would place an undue burden on their RP, and effectively restrict them to being only their job on anything but the tamest extended shift. It would be harmful to gameplay and to RP, for very little reward.

I agree with this completely. It's extremely poor form to demand access to something or form a militia (unless the circumstances are extremely dire and you would form a militia as a non-sec/command char anyways) as an off-duty officer or head. I avoid security matters like the plague when I play off duty HoS, because there is already a security team on board and this is break time goddamnit. Off-duty officers should not join a non-officer role and then act like officers regardless. I don't think we should quite as far as making them unreliable in a fight (which I am in security roles anyways), but instead encourage them to avoid fights and let security do their job. They should never have any combat gear in almost any scenario, so they don't need to act un-charactarily unrobust on top of that.

First of all, there's a pretty big difference between working at a cafeteria and being a chef (which is what the job is called by the way: Chef, not lunch-lady. There is a cook role, but you can just pick the other one). I see nothing wrong with a head deciding to work as a Chef or a Bartender, as those are both dignified jobs that require a lot of skill. Again, I think this really depends on the character, and should be left on a person to person basis rather than simply saying "Noone is allowed to do this, period." Sure, some heads wouldn't deign themselves to be seen with the common folk, but others wouldn't mind at all. And you have to remember that canonically, the station isn't that dangerous (since antags are non-canon, of course), and any drunk rowdiness will be dealt with by security quickly. Additionally, the station works very differently than a hospital or even a naval vessel, as Munks proposes. The comparison to the hospital is inaccurate, since it is a place where people live for extended amounts of time (in cryo or otherwise), and the comparison to the naval vessel is also inaccurate, since it is not a military vessel, and off-duty personnel spend a lot of time on the station as well, unlike military ships. I think the "visitor asking for access/jobs" is a wholly different problem to this, and should again, be dealt with on a case by case basis. It's explicitly against station directives to do so, so anyone that's doing it should be arrested or reprimanded OOCly for bad RP.

This is exactly the point I made in my staff report. Heads and other staff consistently appear on station as visitors, which proves that heads can indeed realistically spend time on station not doing their primary job. This means that, on an off-shift like that, there would be nothing wrong with working as say, a bartender or chef if the character has those as a hobby. Sure, I wouldn't see a snobby captain like Vitellia working chef, so it needs to make sense with the character, but if it does make sense, why not allow it? It's pretty clear that they wouldn't be doing it for the pay, but as a hobby In summary: if the knowledge is feasibly attainable, if the character has a reason to do so, and if the character doesn't do it every single shift, why should it not be allowed?

This is the main point I have an argument with. I see heads spending time as visitors on station constantly, and theoretically, that argument should apply to them as well, no? They're taking a break from their job to just hang out on station with the people they know. Leonce isn't doing this instead of being a HoS, he's doing it when he wouldn't be working HoS anyways.

BYOND Key: driecg36 Staff BYOND Key: NoahKirchner Game ID: bSq-aZWi Reason for complaint: This is more so a complaint about the specific application of a rule rather than the staff member himself. I have a character, Pierre Leonce, who's main line of work is Head of Security. He has security training, experience, and that is his career. However, his hobby that he is the most passionate about is bartending. So, I thought it would be reasonable to have him occasionally work a shift as bartender, since he would get to spend some time with his coworkers, simply talking to them and doing something he likes. However, Noah told me it wasn't acceptable to have him work as a bartender at all, as the pay gap is not only very large, but also that NT would want him working every possible shift as a Head of Security, since they were too important to work such a low-brow job (which is admittedly a good point). Still, I disagree with him for the following reasons: In conclusion, I think there is nothing wrong with making this character take an occasional shift as bartender. It isn't unrealistic, it is not powergamey (since I avoid anything even remotely security related like the plague when I play bartender, and mixing drinks as a HoS isnt exactly powergamey either), it doesn't hamper anyone's enjoyment of the game (in fact, I had a great time with all the other off duty heads that shift). Thus, I think my character working as a bartender is perfectly reasonable interdepartmental knowledge, and breaks no rule. Evidence/logs/etc: PM logs between me and Noah. Additional remarks: Noah is a great guy, and I believe he should succeed his trial, regardless of the outcome of this report. He was simply applying the rules as he saw best.