kyres1

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/15961 This is a feedback thread for the above pull request.

What the title says. Pretty simple reasoning; nobody really wants to bring up fascism in any regard or beat around the bush of it. I especially don't want the particular terminology used because I believe it attracts the completely wrong people who absolutely shouldn't be here. I'm sure some other term works to assign to the evil, dictatorial and authoritarian/xenophobic SRF, or an entirely new word could be invented to assign to the political party overall. It'd help us at least lean away from the topic becoming commonplace seeing as, judging by ongoing arcs, we are probably going to be hearing a lot about the SRF for the coming weeks/months. For reference the actual mention of it is here, https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Human_Ideologies_and_Governments and the SRF entry on the Wildlands itself doesn't actually note these people are definitively fascist.

Ckey/BYOND Username: kyres1 Position Being Applied For: Wiki maintainer Have you read the Lore Team Rules and Regulations wiki page? : Yes Past Experiences/Knowledge: I don't know if being a developer is relevant to this, so here's a link to everything I did as a loredev on the wiki not including the like 300 google docs. It includes most navboxes, event templates, and the main page itself/summary page/corp pages etc... https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Kyres1 Examples of Past Work: See above Additional Comments: I just want the perms so I can properly work on wiki pages relevant to the stuff that I develop (again). I'm not opposed to using the role to help out in other ways, but I basically did that with lore perms anyway when I had them.

In terms of what the PEAC is, it's not meant (and never was) (And really should never be) something that is fair to everything posed against it. At the end of the day, it is indeed a rocket launcher of sorts. It goes over your shoulder and fires projectiles meant to disable, slow down, or damage objects, vehicles and synthetics that, both thematically and realistically, are completely impervious to any sort of conventional force capable of easily rendering a living person into a red mist. The conclusion I made from that is, whatever the PEAC is, it should be loud, unwieldy, dangerous, liable to overkill and collateral, and capable of reasonably contesting the threats it is designed to ward off. The PEAC is all of these things. So, you have to consider these things are kind of expectations regardless of if it's a rocket launcher or not. There's not many things a person can perceive as satisfying to use or witness use of, that can contest the threats here, really at all. EMPs and ions, which the PEAC replaced, functionally accomplished all of this with absolutely none of the perks of it being the PEAC. It just deleted, and when it didn't delete the threats, it sufficiently incapacitated their armament, armor, electronics and etc. to the point where they were basically dead. The PEAC obviously isn't the finest integration into day-to-day antagonist gameplay, but with the above said, it's certainly an improvement over what would essentially be quietly putting the antagonist on the ground otherwise. Another consideration is that the entire rest of the security armory, the crew armory, and whatever else you lump into defeating the antagonists is just as lethal and equally liable to end rounds early. So, we then have to question what we gain from de-escalating what we've given security again, and from that we get the age-old discussion of "why is this SCC vessel practically defenseless," which was even a prominent argument on the Aurora. It's sacrificing immersion for antagonists of all things, and that's kind of obviously a downhill spiral, given antagonists haven't been and won't be touched for indefinite periods of time. If anything, antagonists have received nothing but "nerfs", and the possibility of outright "buffs" to their kit is not something anybody agrees will make the game more fun. tl;dr Game ending the antagonist is always going to suck, but it is very difficult to avoid doing this. May as well do it in a cool way. Deleting the antagonist is not always a bad play, either, speaking from the perspective of someone who at least tries to play antagonist consistently.

Hi. I think you're on the right track by reaching out in good faith to offer wholehearted critique from the standpoint of someone who sees something wrong - not just on the SS13 reddit, but bringing it here is a positive thing. The community sees it easier, and in general very few new players or people seeking to enjoy the server have the will to do that basic act. It's hard to sort between those who care and are simply here to cause problems, after all. That said, I'll offer some advice as a regular here and hopefully help you out a little. A big draw to Aurora (as in, the SS13 server itself, offshoot things on Discord need not apply) is its presence in a larger and more coordinated story. This story has been progressing for a very long time ; so long in fact that we're very rapidly nearing an entire decade of being around. That's a long, long time. And throughout that time, we've undergone countless overhauls, reworks, updates, events, and progress that we starkly contrast what we even were starting out - with only our history existing to highlight the mistakes, or unique things we can do going forward. Of course, this is a give-and-take situation. We're forced to face the fact that our setting gets more grossly complicated with each passing canon event (the term used to describe things that remain real in the universe' timeline) piling on to an increasingly complex, and incomprehensibly large mountain of unorganized mismatched text blocks. At the end of the day, we obviously take away a lot from our history. If it weren't for our history, sticking to our current style of play would be profoundly pointless, and even detrimental due to its effects on our stagnation as a community. It does, however, intimidate people in its tremendous length, and this is unavoidable - a video below the length of twenty minutes couldn't easily explain a penny's worth of our lore, honestly. Do I think condensing our lore and introduction into something bite-sized is a good thing? Yes, almost universally. Is it as simple as writing a script and talking over a slideshow to explain the lore? No. You'd have to adequately cover a pretty wide base to introduce brand-new players to the setting entirely, and it would easily spiral into a long-winded and overly detailed essay. Worse yet, it'd need to be updated on a month-by-month basis unless it explains themes in a very broad and nondescript manner. So, this is basically all hard to summarize. Therefore, it hasn't been summarized. That's all I can say about the video suggestion, regrettably. This suggestion also involved a lot of questions, of which I'll answer as best I can to help you out. All of that is covered below. The intricacies of this are implied through the faction or origin you end up deciding upon. While things like autocanon (the ability to canonize your own frontier planet so long as it is believable and doesnt contradict current lore) exist, they are still heavily rooted in the idea that you'd have at least a cursory understanding of the galactic stage. The background summary page (which I assume you've read entirely) decently covers the overall galactic situation ; as for how your character would treat particular species or "get along," that's virtually entirely your liberty to pursue as a player within the believability rules. Yes. In fact, this is such an exaggerated and cartoonish aspect that players and staff alike frequently joke about the matter of inter-species "racism" (in actuality, xenophobia) on a near-daily basis. The discrimination of other species between the regions and factions is extremely critical in our lore. It often decides how roleplay pans out before it even begins, with Dominian-aligned mercenaries hunting synthetics because Dominia itself despises synthetics as part of their state religion, and so on. The major factions play in with the megacorporations - picture a series of corporations that operate above a national level, and hire from virtually any citizenship regardless of affiliation or alignment. As long as it makes the corporation money, you - or your people in general - are likely to be employed by them. The megacorporations are who we, the players work for, so that neatly ties into character creation to help out. As said in the first portion of this reply, Aurora relies heavily on an established universe to generate consistent interactions between developed characters that can reliably build into years-long stories. In many cases, extraneous "fluff" or inconsequential information is easy to spot. Arguably, you aren't expected or mandated to know even an inkling of it - your character could be a shut-in, or contrarily be tuned in with the mainstream. This is again up to your own perception and ideal playstyle. As long as what you do doesn't override what exists you're given a lot of freedom here. Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a continuation of the previous points as well. Records work pretty simply. You input the records in any manner you wish, and many people opt to use "formats" or just link to documents/images that cover their character's records in detail. Personally, I use records to cover important details for my character's background. If those details are relevant, like an assistant having extensive EVA training, or an engineer having a pilot's license, I can bring them up ICly - if they're believable, people can easily act with them fairly, and for example permit your engineer to fly. That's an example, obviously, I'm not sure if engineers could feasibly have pilot's licenses for the sake of having bridge crew keep their jobs. I hope that simplifies it. You won't! A lot of the lore, and to many people the majority of the lore that exists plainly won't interest you. To play very believable characters, despite what Reddit might say, you only need a very broad understanding of it. There's many simple avenues to approach that are purposely designed to accommodate new players, such as Biesel. It's not any less fleshed out or historically valuable, but it's far easier to quickly ingest and make a character with. To this day, I still play Biesellites because they're just as deep as any other character. I hope all of this helps understand the server better. I'm aware it's all a very complicated thing to approach as a new player in any circumstance, and for what it's worth, I hope this reply serves as a warm welcome to you or anybody else reading it to give Aurora a try.

What the title says. Basically, round end should end in four ways instead of the three. The three that exist at present are evacuation via pods, normal bluespace jump roundends, and the ship being scuttled. The proposal here is to make bluespace jumping optional, with the ability to maybe define or clarify the heading or direction, if command so chooses. This becomes mechanically preventable by means of destroying a bluespace drive similar to one implemented originally in a closed PR by @Gem (though it was never merged), or depowering it etc. The actual normal way of ending rounds via voting transfer would end up being a shift swap. This means that stuff like long-term stays on exoplanets don't mandate having to return to the horizon at the end of two hours ; the stay could potentially extend beyond roundend. It also means that we are more vulnerable and our ability to slip into bluespace is not a certainty. Either way, a bluespace jump ends the round, since it'd be a little odd to jump and end up in the same area of the overmap. Alternatively, a cool and probably harder method is actually putting the ship into bluespace and not completing the jump after the two minutes elapse, changing the tiles outside and etc. I'd be unable to code it, but I am able to sprite any effects needed.

This pretty much accurately summarizes the experience I felt having to repeatedly use sana to counteract quick game-overs in a round last night (which I believe led to this post.) While the sanasomnum injectors, to me, really felt essential if I wanted to get around whatsoever, it became trying to strike a balance between having reasonable enough goals to try and carry out when faced with being conventionally unkillable. Three of my teammates ended up headgibbed at the end of the day, and using one of their uplinks, things got even crazier because I was able to use seven telecrystals to even greater effect. At that point, the snowball of the sanasomnum ended up having me reduce my objectives to "gather corpses and leave," because the volume of ballistics in crew hands (especially after killing the other mercs) meant every engagement afterwards would promptly result in a sanasomnum stop somewhere in maintenance. It wasn't fun for anybody involved and it was nobody's fault. Basically, sanasomnum may seem essential to antagonist players but actually holds them back because it produces a get-out-of-jail-free card that can be hidden and used any time, many times. For something to provide second chances to mercenaries, much less far more vulnerable antagonists such as traitors, it's best to make what it is abundantly clear so the crew can expect more difficulty and adjust accordingly, as opposed to just dying. Armor once functioned to a similar hypothetical degree ; Breachers used to be very very scary. I do not know precisely how strong they are now, but seeing a breacher used to be a certain crew wipe if people didn't coordinate, not just meaning security but everybody if the Unathi chose. It's like bringing in a tank, which is super intimidating and insurmountable at first, but with coordination and a plan you could defeat it. Breachers, in this case, just needed freeze rays followed by an excessive amount of bullets, though on the Aurora armory that was very difficult to come by. The takeaway being you needed to know you were fighting a tank for this to actually happen. If the Breacher was invisible, you were just fucked, similarly to how sana is working out right now. This leads me to think it should be capped at one or two purchases, or at least expensive enough to bar repetitive buys. A clever way of doing it would be making its price six telecrystals - therefore, mercenaries and ninjas could only buy two, but weaker antagonists like burglars and traitors could buy three if they saved 18 telecrystals for whatever reason. The same goes for adjusting it to nine, because then mercs could only buy one, but burgs/tators two, which makes more sense honestly (but does make it very expensive for traitors.) An alternative to the necessary "second chance" would just need to be something apparent. Anything from a two-handed impervious front facing shield to an unarmed protective brick works, as long as it makes surviving less inhumanly difficult but not character breaking to counter. While I'm not gonna use this suggestion thread to propose that, I just mean to say that there's probably alternatives that work besides sanasomnum functionally. Edit : I forgor how easy it would be, so I just adjusted the price myself. The PR is here and links back to this thread ; https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/15055 Double edit : I closed the PR because dreamy has a better PR up with the framework to make it better easier (I am very intelligent) so I'll do it with that after it's merged optimally

The issues that come from borg can be attributed to the fact that they aren't really characters at their core - or, at the least, the prerequisite for a borg is to have your agency taken away from you. After all, you are equipment. That said, I don't think it's very helpful for anybody to play what is effectively less than a character in an environment where everybody is playing characters, especially not encouraged to do so. The more agency that is removed from cyborgs, the less characterized they can become, but simultaneously we run into the age-old issue of these being unwhitelisted roles with no process of quality control. They only inherently can be tuned so freely due to this. I don't really deeply desire the removal of stationbounds, but something that permits these things to become characters more than encouraged to detriment is needed to me. Otherwise, removal (or at least proposing removal) is the first step towards improvement. In a perfect world, a solution would be to lump them under a synthetic whitelist and prevent them from being applied for directly, so people have to demonstrate some measurement of understanding what they are before playing them. That way, they can be granted more freedom in characterization by merit of a synthetic whitelist. Or, perhaps, even have their laws (the primary roleplay nerf) toned down or removed.

BYOND Key: kyres1 Staff Byond Key/Character name: WickedCybs Reason for complaint: Very demeaning behavior directed at me with reasoning that yet confounds me. The substance this complaint is directed towards is the entire content of a previous forum thread wherein I was the subject of Cyb's complaint. For complete transparency, I am not contesting the result of the complaint, or anything related to the staff side of how it was handled whatsoever. The intent here is to basically seek repercussions for, in my opinion, awful behavior demonstrated by Cybs (as both a moderator and a player) in that complaint. My responses to the conduct in the thread itself were pretty clear in that I wanted reasoning to back up any of the claims leveraged against me, a few of which did not pertain to the complaint whatsoever and felt like they were dug up for no other reason than to cause harm and be difficult. In response, I didn't get any reasoning for anything. What I effectively got was more sidetracking, spiraling the public complaint into a dismissal of my personal integrity. For, yet again, a reason I don't know. In the thread I defended against a lot of accusations and saw myself on the end of pretty heinous insults that, for a player, would go above and beyond what is "normally allowed" to be said in player complaints. This isn't to say some stupid bias is in play. This is instead me saying that I expect more from Cybs than to end up acting like this in the first place, not as a player but as a moderator. The previous thread is going to be read either way, but to solidify what I feel is wrong here, I'll run over what I had against me and explain why I think Cybs is at fault for behaving in such a way. 1. Most importantly, something I am very fixated on is the accusations of paranoia. I asked twice, once in giant colored text, and this is my third time asking - yet again in colored text. Exactly what does Cybs have to offer to make any implication that I am paranoid? This is discarding the fact that it is plainly a direct insult to call someone paranoid, and sets me up to be called crazy if I intend to make assumptions of my own or even speculate on certain comments. This is insidious and makes me feel like shit that I've been in this community for this long and I'd get called crazy in any context. To specifically target the accusation in question, It should go without saying that, to the best of my knowledge, I've never worked on an immediate team with Cybs of any sort. I don't think they necessarily refer to any one of my four or five tenures, but to say we were colleagues in any circumstance is a lie. I have not once shared lore with them, nor development for any amount of time, and they lack any access to the official channels of either as a moderator. "The players" is even more confusing, because I do not know where exactly I have broadcasted any of my feelings about this in any sort of public circumstance. I especially have broadcasted none in private to Cybs themselves. 2. The immediate jump and implication that we were or have ever been friends was, in my opinion, entirely just used as leverage to further vilify me. The process of this effectively went down as claiming we were once friends (which is reaching at best and a lie at worst), then giving them the opportunity to double down and say I totally unpredictably disrespected them and I've disappointed them for it. This is, mind you, in response to me defending myself over a complaint targeting me. The excuses used were meant to indicate that I am "making it about me," when the entire premise of the complaint was about defacing me. This is a level of dishonesty and manipulation that greatly, greatly pisses me off ; not necessarily because I feel I've lost a friend, or that I distrust Cybs more or less for it. Instead, I am pissed because Cybs has gone on a tirade about this as a moderator to place me in a position where people would be wrong to not distrust me. This is a community I have a very long history with. I have a lot of time spent here and I've met potentially hundreds of people. I would need to be clueless not to see someone calling me a treacherous liar as something that could screw me over in the long run. 3. Claimed to (up until the complaint's closure) have a bag of shit to drop on me from nondescript people in nondescript circumstances. The two key quotes on this are, I do not like this. Nobody would like being told there are people who actively withhold a slew of damning information about you. I am well aware there are people who regularly burn other people's names with zero repercussions. That's the nature of the internet, and is nothing we as a community can prevent in the end. There is nothing these endless complaints can amount to if they don't present themselves in the official circumstances to begin with. If there are truly so many people who paint themselves out as my #1 haters, then it's a hilarious coincidence I haven't heard a solemn thing from anybody or any group on the matter, for anything, especially the conduct outlined in the complaint. The point here being ; I don't care how many people you have to stir shit about me or who have damning evidence regarding me. If they had damning evidence, they'd send it. They lose absolutely nothing by telling staff privately about my wrongdoings, and I'd argue they lose nothing by just telling me myself. This leads me to say that I don't think Cybs, as a moderator or a player, brought up this particular information without knowing full well it was redundant at best and trying to set me up to stir shit at worst. Evidence/logs/etc: There is no external sources for "evidence" besides the material within this thread. Which, is the first time I've ever had this sort of experience with Cybs, meaning that I don't intend to pursue it further if their conduct was deemed appropriate. Additional remarks The previous complaint was handled by @ReadThisNamePlz and @Alberyk

I'm completely fine with this resolution. @ReadThisNamePlz

In case you misread, I said official or unofficial. People don't take a liking to approaching other people about their wrongdoings. I especially don't get DMs, much less pings in public discords telling me how shitty my attitude is. Ever. If you expected this to be any different, I don't know what to tell you. This is not a reversal. I am reacting to the way you are behaving in this complaint and saying the honest truth. I don't think I changed course at all. Half my second reply was doubling down on things I said in the first reply. I would hope you interpret it exactly as it was said, considering the context of this. My intention in saying this was pretty clearly to outline that I have never had any sort of ridiculous responsibility or obligation to label you so dearly as a friend. You are pulling this out as a card against me and proceeding to tell me, yet again, that I "easily and quickly turn on others." That's unbelievably insulting. You're going to go this far, in a public complaint, to try and test the trust people may have in me by using my defensive behavior and the literal fact that I don't know you almost at all to say I easily and quickly turn on people. I'm not about to hold you to "post evidence that we were ever friends." I don't ping you or talk to you outside of public chats and I know next to nothing about you. This is more manipulative and insulting wording. You are basically calling everything : see "ever been sincere," I've said here, bullshit and maybe everything else I've ever said too. Exactly when did your first affirmation become that I'm an insincere bastard? Wasn't this complaint about vitriolic behavior? Why am I just being toted as a liar by you now? Have I lied once? Here's your thought process. You make a complaint targeted at one person. The one person explains themselves. The one person explains why they're defending it and defends their stance. You call it "self victimization" and "justifying increasingly abhorrent behavior," and that it speaks for itself so much so that I assume you're trying to disconnect from the argument altogether. I gotta ask you. Am I supposed to just crumple like paper when people turn me into a public circus? Do I just shut up and hope whatever damning shit you pull out of your sleeve doesn't screw me over, harm my actual friendships, my hobbies, my presence on the server, my ability to play the server, and more? This is obviously all rhetorical because I really should not just shut up. I've learned this before. If I keep my mouth shut, people will just say anything about me. Speaking of which, let's go over what you've said in this complaint that not only challenges my mental health, but is just plainly insulting. You have : 1. Called me paranoid, with no basis for this accusation. You dodged answering as to why, exactly, you called me this. Not that it's okay or not plain manipulative to call anybody paranoid to begin with. 2. Been demonstrably dishonest with me by claiming we have some affiliation with one another that, in any regard, would demand some form of heightened respect when I barely know you. 3. Used the dishonest claims above to try twisting the onus on me by saying my behavior in defending myself is abhorrent, self-victimizing, vitriolic, and desperately justifying myself. 4. Discarded what was a sincere apology and, once more, disputed it by insisting I'm the one being dishonest and insincere. Apparently apologizing on a complaint about me using me as a subject is strange? 5. Claimed I'm effectively making this a pity party towards myself. 6. Claimed that you have potentially damning evidence stored by people who can optionally volunteer this evidence in the complaint, but you're waiting for the right time, as if this is a game you're trying to get bonus points in. None of this shit is core to the original complaint, but it's definitely made an impression on me, and I can give you a certainty that it's made an impression on whoever else read this already-novel-length thread. Once more, I have to ask you if I'm supposed to just submit to this. The thing is, replying to this thread was just as optional as me getting punished in the first place from it. I could've just gone and said nothing and my punishment would be in the air until it was officially handled. However, you have a peculiar way of particularly reaching for some sort of reaction and trying to cling to whatever you can get from the upset that is obviously going to come after it. You painted me as an idiotic asshole whose behavior is a dice roll to attack (yours or my own) friends in avenues they can't see me in. Because of this, the very first post challenged the idea that anybody could trust me, and to no surprise, that's quite frustrating. I defended myself. The above occurred. You claim I twisted the way I'm approaching this argument to cover my ass. I didn't say anything remotely equivalent to what's on that list. Also, I will put this in a different color text and size for certainty and so you basically can't miss it. Please answer this.

Me asking for you to not call my comments just bitching was the clarification. And, it may come as some surprise to anybody reading this with however they may view me, but I do honestly care about not only my image in the community, but the fact that you are a person on the other side of the screen. I do not want to shit on you as much as I do not want to shit on anybody else. I did not intentionally teleport into the fire. Nor did I intentionally linger. I died almost thirty seconds after the engagement began - frankly, I didn't expect my stims to wear off so quickly, but I was met with a lot of firepower and multiple people carrying multiple rifles - a mixture of lasers and ballistics, meaning every effort to get beyond and out was pretty much nonexistent. No, I did not plot to kill as many people as I possibly could. This is assuming I'm after some high score with executing security again, and to paint this more clearly, is treating me like an idiot off-handedly while going back to saying the comments themselves are the focus of this particular section. Okay. I will tell you the same thing I almost (or maybe have?) told Matt in the ticket that led into this. In the absolute worst case scenario (which is not this case), let's say I'm insulting an entire manifest of people. The manifest this time around was, at minimum due to the roundtype, 13 people, I'd wager more due to latejoins. So let's be generous and say there's only 13 people on this manifest. Now let's say I make a pointed insult towards 13 tangentially related people for some unknowable reason with intent to upset them all. I have to return the same thought process to you ; why exactly would this be seen in any harmful manner, much less actually be insulting to the people playing the game? Now, I'm not going to say this is at all what actually happened. The population was larger, the intention was not to upset anyone, and I did not once say I didn't mean it seriously. My critique was, to me, still valid, and I still hold to the judgement I made, in admittedly some frustration, to comment on it in deadchat. Were it not for that, I wouldn't have cooled down, though simultaneously I had to deal with this in its place, which I couldn't have seen coming until Matt confirmed it was going to the forums at roundend. Is this "critique," or "insult," or whatever you'd like to call it, actually insulting to anybody on the manifest? It's about as insulting as calling an entire manifest of extended players chair roleplayers. It's ineffectual. If it genuinely honestly offends you, then I in turn have no idea what to say, because for all I know you're reaching for stuff to be offended by. Should I never comment in a derogatory way towards a massive, mostly unrelated and barely attached-together player group again? Maybe? I don't know. This is, to me, something that does not matter. Okay but if I had an issue with these people I am more than capable of DMing 95% of them or questioning them or critiquing them in out-of-character channels. I have done this. Many times. To say all I do is insult people in deadchat once more assumes I'm insulting any particular people much less... dog piling? I'm usually the one who ends up trying to justify actions and behavior against a dog pile. No, you really haven't. I recall precisely one misunderstanding in relay OOC. I don't even recall the substance or end goal of it, beyond it being somehow related to lore discussions in the OOC channel. First of all, if this had been in any public channel, I don't remember it. Second of all, if this had been in any private channel, I can give you an absolute certainty that I have not been confronted about any sort of attitude or behavioral problems from an official or unofficial standpoint in what might be literally years. My most recent debacle would probably be the closest to this, where you can see the contents of the warning below, and this happened over a year ago. My only warning before that goes straight to 2018. So, no. Other people have not gone and talked to me whatsoever about the insulting, vitriolic behavior you are insisting I'm frequently taking on in deadchat, or any chat for that matter. This particular note (you being told that other people have supposedly spoken to me) is of pretty great importance to me, because it's pretty much telling me you're being fed some completely different narrative that leads you to believe I am getting knee-deep in this shit on a daily basis. You talk in deadchat nigh constantly every day I see you playing. In my eyes, you'll say these inflammatory things similarly to how you told me to stop bitching, and then shut it down when you receive the least bit of backtalk. Why? Because you're the moderator. That's frustrating. Did I particularly care until this complaint? No, I really didn't. But you're effectively turning half of the content of this complaint into how I am changing the definitions and implied tone of my messages to suit my needs. Am I supposed to not be confused and frustrated when this is being leveled against me from a moderator of all people, who can basically just tone up how hostile I'm being and react by punishing me? Okay but if they're posting here it is going to become a highlight reel of random people butting in to spread whatever they can or want to do precisely what you're doing, which is to seek action against me for my wrongdoings. You didn't think, as a person who has to deal with privately administering punishment every day, that it might've been worthwhile to sort your damning quotes out beforehand? More importantly, exactly when will it "become relevant" to start posting shit to secure action against me? What does that even mean? I have not once called you a friend to me in any genuine context or even made the assumption that you are in any way perceiving me or have ever perceived me in a light that isn't just general disdain. In effect, I have to treat you with the same ten foot pole anybody else on the internet, much less the extremely ridiculously controversial SS13 community, should receive. Does it mean I hate your guts? No. But don't go out of your way to pull the cliche pitiful angle about how disheartened you are and how much of a shocker it is that I would ever do wrong to you when I have no such obligation to just let you attack me. A disclaimer on that is that you have been in groups that I've probably off handedly referred to you as a friend in. Maybe there's a misunderstanding there, who knows, but given you're going for the throat, I don't have much choice but to defend what I have here. You're making a complaint. Against me. The subject of the day is to literally seek punishment against me. The apology did not come before or after I made my intention to defend myself clear. It came in the very same post. To tell me that a genuine apology is just another aspect of my arguing seriously pisses me off, and it should be clear that I'm not under any obligation to apologize to you either in any context. It ultimately boils down to you assuming the absolute conceivable worst of me and then morphing it into your next angle in your reply. I am going to tackle this by saying that not a single part of this complaint or my behavior could be attributed to any sort of indication that I am at all "intensely paranoid." I am also going to tell you this is the second time in a public forum I have been falsely accused of being a manic paranoid. I am then going to ask you why exactly you believe I am paranoid and I will be very honest when I say this : I am not about to be treated like I am crazy by you, or anybody for that matter. I will repeat the entire intention to my reply from the first post just for this. With the above there, I don't have any reason or want to beat around the bush. There is no pity party of "look what you made me do, wah wah" on my end - I do not care what you in particular think, at least not after what you've said in this complaint. I want you to take that second paragraph into account as well, because I really honestly tried to see your standpoint on the matter as level headed as I could. See the above entry of how I effectively treat you and recognize you as a stranger. You are once more just taking what I'm saying, calling it wholly disingenuous, and then twisting the angle to make it out like you're worse off for... me apologizing. You could've gone many angles ; perhaps even just not accepted the apology to begin with. Instead, you opted to treat it like it's not only dirt, but shattered any assumed "respect" you had for me, which again I don't even believe could have existed considering we know each other so sparsely. This is basically just telling me to fuck off for trying to defend myself, then telling me to fuck off for even putting anything remotely reconcilable in my post, then telling me to fuck off because I've shattered faith you had that - up until this point, I didn't even know, and still don't even know existed. The moral of the story behind this entire complaint can be summarized to me with this. This is my only takeaway that has stuck so far. The rest is just a mountain of dirt you're heaping up against me for what very well could be the first instance of this in years.

Let me preface this reply with : I have no intention to upset anyone. I play antagonist for two reasons, it's fun and I get to help other people have fun. I do not and probably never will have malice towards you. If I did, I would be blunt about it - I would, as I do with anybody else, take my critique or upset to literally any avenue besides trashing you, or anybody for that matter, in a public chat that is not only filled with people who can misinterpret it, but also is actively moderated and logged. This doesn't imply I would shit on you outside of logged areas either ; this just means it's kind of stupid to attack anybody in deadchat. You're shooting yourself in the foot by even bothering, regardless of how angry you are. My intention replying to this complaint is to curb or at least soften any punishment I may or may not receive. With the above said I obviously don't want to lose access to this part of the game (antags). I have been doing it a lot, for a very long time, and managed to make up for a pretty crappy track record over the years (I hope.) For what it's worth, I'll take a break and just stop playing them as frequently as I have in recent weeks. I've done this before - typically after complaints like this meet a resolution - and those breaks are met with good results. The exception to the above is going to be stuff I just perceive as a personal attack, which is probably due to your frustration. While I'm more than used to people just outright berating and attacking me, and making up shit for me to be the bad guy, I have more faith in you than that and I'm pretty certain anything excessive said here was done in a heated manner. What is said above is most, if not everything I said in deadchat on the matter. However I asked you, and generally when you hear this it is quite important, to not twist my words somewhere in there. As it's in text and you can't obviously glean a tone in most cases, my best advice to you is to not assume I'm out to somehow tear into - if such a thing is even possible to feasibly do - the entire manifest of twenty, maybe more people. I screenshotted the entire exchange after realizing this was going to the forums. Four really important messages were left out. "don't twist my words please" I'm used to my words being used against me. It should be no surprise that text is difficult to parse intention or expression in, so people can twist them to fit their intentions. In this case, you're making me out to be way more upset than I actually am, and pretending my only expectation was for the crew to "just die." For full clarity the next screenshot is what came before that, so we're absolutely clear that's not the only thing you said. You say I made this happen. Yeah. I know I made it happen. I had a sword and I was getting shot to death by six, and more people in a dark tunnel. I was on fire. I suicide bombed with a welder tank. I decapitated Rey Zarzamora an hour beforehand. I did numerous egregious things ICly that led up to escalating to me getting shot. I never said anything about how I died was surprising ; plainly, I worded it just as you said in the complaint. The odds were overwhelmingly against me, as they are in every other round. It's frustrating, because I deal with this every day! Do I get super duper upset and start insulting people daily? No. I don't. I play a lot. You'd have to be not only implying you don't ahelp this, but nobody else ahelps it, and then no admins or moderators see it, for hours of every day ceaselessly back and forth. "and dont say i'm bitching when i'm entirely calm" This is a preventative statement because you have insistently called me upset before when I have been entirely calm. Your only action when a person with power is telling you to calm down is to effectively fuck off ; if you say "I'm calm," they'll tell you you're lying and your words speak for themselves, and if you tell them to shut up, you're digging your own grave. "unless this is another passive aggressive way of telling me to shut up in deadchat from a moderator standpoint" See above. This is pretty much me re-affirming that I am confident it's a landmine, and is entirely a serious question, because I have no intention of ever arguing with any staff ever when they are holding their position over my head. "in which case i will just shut up" This is said because, again, I don't have any intention of arguing if you are telling me to shut up. You can literally just ban me for continuing, dude, and I am well aware of this. Afterwards, Matt did the proper thing and actually just told the conversation to stop in plain text. This seems to be a recurring case with so much you've heard me say in dead chat as quite frequently I am assessed with a "shut up" or "stop talking about this" when things are entirely calm. This is a key statement here, as I assume you intend to refer to Radic (who is Cybs) as being the only Tajara in security and thus this is or can be construed as an insult towards you. So, I'll go ahead and tell you the truth ; it's not. First of all, the statement was in clear reference to the power of security and my frustration towards it. Your behavior, your person, your character, nothing had anything to do with this statement that should be seen as insulting. The power of security is extremely overwhelming. The only antagonist capable of properly holding their own is mercenaries, without some major shameless powergaming in play. This is completely fine because I honestly do not like the concept of antagonists as they are (this does not mean I don't find them fun to play or engage with), so do not take this for my complaint. However, when you are on the receiving end of it, it is naturally quite frustrating, no matter how many times you get your face stomped in. Dying is usually completely fine, it comes with escalation and roleplay and buildup. But sometimes, you'll run into scenarios where a G2 facetanks your chungus cannon and grabs you and ends your round at 00:35. It's not a great feeling, but it's never something to rip people apart over. Ever. By this you effectively mean you're frustrated because I get frustrated, and then just lying and saying I say terrible things about others. You can see the previous writing to probably help solidify this idea, but I do not think I say any terrible things about any particular people, especially not in deadchat, which is again just shooting myself in the foot. If I were truly offended by these people's play, and wanted to say terrible things about them, why would I do it in such an overt way as you've described in a moderated and logged environment? I want to say this is a matter of how much faith you can put into me, because that's basically the only defense I have against however you paint what I'm doing. I do not say terrible things about anybody in deadchat. You have not. Every confrontation is basically you butting in with a moderator tag and telling the entire deadchat conversation to stop. There is no such thing as arguing with a moderator in deadchat ; you're literally asking for a ban at that point. This is again basically calling me stupid, or maybe stuck-up enough to think I have enough sway to do this sort of thing. Further, I have no solid memory of this round, so if you post the logs I will probably be able to recall and actually defend myself in the event whatever I said was noteworthy. I don't want this to turn into a multi-week dog pile. If you need extraneous input, what exactly made you post this complaint without collecting it first? Without putting words in your mouth, this feels like maximizing the amount of grief this can generate instead of trying to go for the quickest solution. I play antagonist practically every other day. I can not recall a solemn time on the Horizon or in recent memory for that matter where I've actually survived an entire round as one. To assume I can "not handle" the possible conclusions of a gimmick assumes I haven't already seen the craziest bullshit the server can muster and put on my plate. Once again, I have absolutely no reason to be insulting anybody in deadchat. You do this, and I don't mean to cherry pick your words, but you even said you've confronted me before about it with mod access to deadchat. I'm a big advocate for staff chatting up any channel they can get their hands on, there's literally no reason to restrict it ; however, when you use this to frequently debate people's opinions spoken in a place known for incoherent salt and whining, do you expect not the least bit of woes when you are in total control of the conversation? It'd be like if Garnascus argued with someone he community banned. That's an example, of course, but the point is that the person has avenues to pursue that are not dead-end. In your case, you have had plentiful opportunities to just ahelp, since, if this happens frequently (It does, and the complaint doesn't disagree) you're seeing this enough to regard it as a frustrating enough issue to not only make public in a forum complaint, but go around asking for help to ensure a punishment is received. As kindly as I can put it, that upsets me to be on the receiving end of. Again. I'll give you a healthy apology regardless of what you might think, have thought or now think of me. I think there is a lot of valid criticism to have in my behavior across a lot of my history, and not just because I've been so active for so long. Complaints are really stressful to have, though, especially when you're more than certain they will result in action if you don't properly defend your position ; which, I basically have to, or else I could get antag banned or worse. So, if anything came off as abrasive, I have to further apologize, but understand I probably won't realize unless you say something about it. I'm not asking for you to assume bad intent with this post, to be clear there - I simply don't want to come off as an asshole by defending myself.

This is what's great about small suggestions. There's not enough effort put into the change itself put up against the potential payoffs, so not trying it is silly when reverting it is as simple as stopping a testmerge. I *was* a fan of dynamic when it showed up, admittedly for very bad reasons. The thread for it is here ; That was a much more popular thread, however. It's also old. But, that's functionally what that sentence implies! Support dynamic today.....

What the title says. Pretty much, remove all roles that one can roll for in the special preferences tab with the exception of "Off-ship Start" and "Crew Start." These new roles would serve to combine the potential for every antagonist by allowing whoever rolls them to pick whatever they'd like to become. This would optimally come with an off-ship base remap and overhaul that I'd personally be willing to do in a heartbeat, provided development expressed any interest. In an ideal world, specialized non-traitor roles could function on either start, meaning that Changelings could begin an off-ship start as well as a crew start. The same could be said for vampires, and cultists, however with minor conversion roles (renegade, revolutionary) being optionally enabled for free by any of these. The functionality of borer thralls would confuse me, though, those are probably best just untouched. This would take the basic antagonist set we have and probably give them an explosively huge variety of approaches for creativity. Without the confines of X or Y's shuttle or ship, or being crammed into a little baby hideout because you can't be trusted with a gun. But kyres, what if (insert overpowered antagonist here) decides they want to just take a mercenary assault rifle to powergame? Saying this isn't a problem would be a lie. While I am an advocate against trying to minmax the game balance on a teetering scale, the idea of an antagonist abusing the multiple routes available to utterly pack their kit with the most obscenely powerful gear of what they can gather is... obviously going to be insufferable. The first solution to this, similarly to how ninja tokens are handled, is to bar the primary equipment or abilities of various antagonists behind vendors, or loadout tokens. That way, when you spawn and decide to go X or Y route, you can't loot every ships' available gear to maximize your effectiveness in combat. You would spawn with the ability to do the traitor panel equip verb on yourself - meaning, if you picked ninja, it'd spawn you with nothing more than the standard loadout (slipsuit, gloves, agent ID, headset, uplink and hardsuit token etc.) whereas you wouldn't have access to the vendor that dispenses mercenary gear. You could walk up to it and view it like a regular vendor, but not actually access it. Either this could be tied to the ID access or antagonist you selected, I'm not entirely sure what's best or more possible. So wait, how do crew antags work? you just don't get access to the antag abilities until you select whatever you are. Once you do that I'd just say it should function the same (nobody is touching ling anyway)

This assumes everybody on the server wants to play autotraitor and extended exclusively. I'm pretty sure the inclination would be towards neither of these gamemodes, with the majority being whatever the highest "intensity" can be voted for the population at the time, and the round immediately after ending up being extended. That's how it's always been. Yeah this makes lots of sense combined with the suggestion. I agree.

This does not mean "remove antagonists" What the title says. Basically, removing/disabling secret temporarily so there is no veil blocking you from immediately seeing the gamemode is the suggestion. Why : It's a non-destructive potential way to just nudge our pop up a little because we're avoiding the crowd who would rather not roll the dice. On either end of the roleplayer's expectation joining a round, you fundamentally have to either expect an interruption halfway through your round, or go in expecting nothing to happen. If your expectations are curbed, only rarely is it ever good. That's not to say a surprise twist antagonist doesn't happen often ; but, it doesn't happen nearly often enough to hide the gamemode, in my opinion. Basically, people don't join without expectations. Ever. Some people join wanting action. Some people join wanting extended. Some people want Long Form RP Station, others want Colonial Marines. The marked difference between these parties isn't in question ; instead, the question of why we're wasting the time of either party when they join with those expectations. but kyres, won't people meta the gamemode? They already do. Your respawn timer is 20 minutes. Just observe every round until you see a mercenary round to metagame, if you're an honest-to-god metagamer. But the actual population of metagamers on this server is so ludicrously low that the previously mentioned time wasting isn't worth it, and only serves to harm our population at best.

I was the technomancer. I didn't entirely grasp the situation in the brig until I arrived there, and at that point I had already taken notice of the ninja who broke off having been killed. I played it off in some comedic fashion, did my sad stuff, and then walked back to the bar to talk the rest over with my ninja coworker. Was it a tonal shift? Yeah, the guy got brutally murdered and I was still playing it funny-like. It's immersion breaking at times, but at that point, I had to either roll with the punches and make people laugh while remaining as IC as possible, or put on some grand fight that would've more than likely frustrated you way more than any antics I could've gotten up to otherwise. Faye advised us in AOOC later in the round that everything was getting confusing due to the improv RP we were patchily working together to make for the other ninja's mess-up, and so we escalated promptly, and wrapped up before the two hour mark with both of us dead to prevent code red from prolonging anything. My defense here is basically that I had no way of feasibly recovering from this course of events without in some way pissing you off. If the comedic, less serious approach is breaking immersion, I understand. If the alternatives are either to leave or to start a goose chase and half-hour slugfest where one of us epic-ally robusts the other, then I'm sorry, but I would still just choose the comedic alternative. If that's wrong of me to do, I do not care, because at that point you, or anybody making this complaint, would be mad regardless of what occurred. Essentially I'm saying that there was no success in this round and I blame the sudden escalation and twisting of tone by the ninja breaking off and going hostile in the brig. However, admittedly, when I asked why, Forester said that they requested someone stay quiet and they promptly shouted out, starting the shooting in the first place. With that said, I have to ask why I'm being put on blast here, precisely, if to my own perception, what I did was the best I could do. My takeaway is that if something like this interrupts your gimmicks or plans, I should just ghost and leave so I don't disrupt your RP further. That's the only conclusion I can come to, considering this was taken to a forum complaint rather than virtually any other avenue of discussion. Do I think you shouldn't post a complaint? Well, of course not, but if you're posting a complaint, generally you expect or desire something to happen. So, for whatever I did in this round, I deserve to be punished. I don't really care about the procedure of who divines this punishment because it's probably not my place. But I do care about what, precisely, you saw that I personally fucked up enough to warrant it.

I'm not staff, at least, I'm not moderation or admin staff. As such, this part - is, well, completely satire. I'm not who this complaint should be directed towards. Furthermore, I don't even know if I said the above. If I did, that was satire too, because I frankly have no idea what happened this round when it did occur. All I saw was the end of the confrontation and climax of the round where Orlova shot you, and again, even then I don't have full context to this. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't see how this is particularly dramatic. This is nearly five years of time we're talking about here. This is something that gets me scratching my head, personally. As in, I agree - most of the things I proposed here are pretty vague, admittedly. I'm happy you came along to ask for specifics. For now? Less immediate focus. These are really secondary to NBT development and getting the NBT rolled out good and proper is, to no surprise, my number one priority no matter the scenario. After it's "settled" I'll focus on putting canonization apps in a certain time of the year or months that are convenient to developers. That way, they are only accepted/reviewed during these times, so things either A. don't pile up or B. don't overwhelm devs 24/7. If a lore writer does not wish to participate in the direction we are moving in with lore, then they more than likely would not apply to begin with. If, by some tiny chance they applied just to change everything, they would not fly long, particularly because we are moving in a direction that does not cherish constant retcons. If a lore writer disagrees, that is their decision to make. Participation and disagreement are very different, actually. I have participated and assisted with many projects I did not agree with, both as synthetic developer and LM. In a sense, everything is torn to shreds in editorial. Someone will find things to disagree about with virtually anything you say, and this is healthy for the writing environment we have. I do not intend to punish people for disagreements like this. On the other hand, refusing to participate in basic team functions is something I've never seen a developer actually do, even the angriest ones who have disagreed the most. I would let the developers decide their own time. In my experience, constant deadlines for anything but the most important stuff is downright agonizing. Most things truly aren't important enough to split time on, and the things that are have a majority agreement from the team to pursue. I learned the remedy to burnout about two years ago : just take a break. If you care enough, you'll come back, and most people do. If one remains inactive for more than a few months, I tend to inquire as to why before anything. Punishment for inactivity is rare and I don't foresee this changing, however, I do yearn for set activity deadlines where people must do something, anything, for their tenure. The specifics of this I would say are up to six months of inactivity resulting in action. Even three or four months of inactive development is very harmful to a species' playerbase.

1. it functions. It serves its intended purpose well. There's plenty of time to give feedback on major retcons internally, which is the biggest gripe when it comes to new developers swooping in to apply retroactive continuity on everything they can touch. 2. Most of this used to be a pointless effort to pursue. However, in recent times, we've banked heavily on specifics. Some of these have grown more important over time ; for example, with the addition of a proper starmap with measurements and distance, we required proper interstellar speeds to be defined. Being nebulous, especially in the NBT, will not do us good in some cases. In others, it is best to leave things up in the air. The specifics of this aren't really fun to go into detail about, especially moderating it, but the core of what I mean is this : Culture and how things work as it pertains to wherever we are visiting, is important. It is quite important to understand, for example, how Orepit's law enforcement responds to certain crimes, if at all should we visit it. Simultaneously, without intent to visit it, Qerrbalak may never prove useful in the same regard. 3. I do not intend to change from a corporate setting under any circumstances. It is the primary drive and most freeform portion of our lore, and in my opinion, altering this would suit the demands of very few people. As for a "melting pot," this is an extension of freedom we are granted already by nature of being in Tau Ceti. You can basically see whatever lore players feel like playing at the time, for any reason, and it'd be in character. 4. Coming from a person who personally implemented multiple isolationist factions? I don't feel strongly about them. They are not particularly harmful by sheer volume (yet) but do serve to portray lore that is otherwise hard to portray elsewhere. It's hard to portray Gadpathur's vehement hatred of Sol with the way the rest of the Coalition can tend to act, that being a melting pot just like TC. It would be difficult to justify otherwise, and this is where isolationism plays its good part in a narrative. To respond to Nienna's post, I will echo this in that regard.

1. You were not privy to the immediate details of the situation. This did not change through the duration of handling it. 2. Weighing in when you want me to weigh in/where you want me to weigh in =! weighing in in the appropriate channels. Should I have kept you updated on how I was handling the situation? In my opinion, no, I do not think I should keep any one developer besides a superior in constant touch about how I plan to punish another developer of equal rank to the subject developer. Basically, think of it like this ; it's favoritism. I do not play favorites here, nor do I intend to. However, picking one person and in any capacity keeping them privy to details of another person's ongoing punishment, is by definition picking a favorite. Should I have told you I was handling it? Yes. And, to my memory, I did. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge you received everything you needed to know from my perspective ; you knew we were investigating it, and you knew that something was going to happen. That said, I am not entirely sure what else you wanted, or continue to want from this. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you reword this? I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but please substantiate what you are saying. You are functionally calling me someone who should be permanently banned, and providing no evidence to this. For reference, you're at this point saying I'm : Pretending to take offense to things you say Lying, outright Using slurs Now, forgive me if I find all this a little outrageous to hold against me. There is no evidence of any of these things. To be clear, though, yes - I do find most of these accusations insulting.

If you intend to pursue this argument, please provide more details on how I messed up. This is referring to my previous application as synthetic developer a few months ago. And, for the record, I do hold to the things I said, largely in part because I do believe I was being attacked. To use the mildest possible example I can, imagine if I told you that you crashed and burned during your tenure as synthetic developer. You proceeded to say the things I did were half-baked, without clarifying what these things were. After I defended myself, you promptly said I was misconstruing your words. This doesn't ring to me as criticisms. Further, I am not entirely sure how my response could be defined as "explosive." Most of the criticisms in this thread went without a reply from me. https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/16020-kyres1-synthdev-app-2/

This is what we've been doing for a while now, and it's been meeting plentiful success I believe. What I mean to do is probably increase the amount of tasks that exist. Though, more deadlines usually results in more stress, and less actual work done in my experience. The big scary topic here is moderation. Everyone tells me that supervisors are just hated by nature - they're the one who makes decisions, after all. But someone has to do it. Fortunately, I was never in the position to make decisions in this sense myself - it was always delegated to Mofo, who would handle the administrative side of things whilst I focused on the nitty gritty of lore. This is what I intend to pursue, in a sense - I will basically avoid moderating behavior wherever necessary unless it is needed from Cael, which will hopefully deflate any ideas that I'd mishandle behavior of certain team members. Failing that, I'm more than willing to pursue direct moderation anyway. If I recall correctly I had nothing to do with this, because I wasn't LM at the time. On that note, I am very critical of political parties in lore, largely because there is not just little, but practically no in-game way to represent these without feeling forced or ridiculous. However. If I were forced into this particular situation hypothetically speaking, I would likely fill the gaps myself or figure out which species devs didn't pick up the slack. They would be tasked with filling in whatever they were expected to fill in to begin with. It depends where the features go. Will we see, interact with, and enjoy the features added? Then keep adding them. This is a roleplaying environment where everything from the addition of pencils to the explosion of Xanu Prime can affect the way players play the game - every single major and minor addition counts. At the same time, lore is the rules. If you break lore, you are more than likely getting punished. We are enforcing this more and more every day by adding new restrictions on the way players can express their creativity using this lore. So, to say we don't enforce it is silly. This leads me to believe that we should control what we focus on, and have a definitive direction in how we structure our lore moving forward. A good example of how to proceed is this : You are going in one direction (by merit of the NBT ship only going one place at a time.) Thus, you build in that direction, instead of building every which way. You can endlessly worldbuild every facet of lore, but you will never obtain the same level of quality (and especially quantity) you can from hyperfocusing on what the next step is. This is, fundamentally, the only way to proceed. For so long we've sat in Tau Ceti, fleshing out a stationary area with no actual change in the substance. Now, we plot to move from this, and figuring out exactly where is one of my biggest desires. To figure out where, you need to figure out what interests your team. You gauge interest, you weigh downsides, and bam, you're now in orbit of Burszia for example doing something the whole team is working towards. The current state of lore has the opposite of this occurring ; everyone is focused on their own sandboxes, rather than a singular sandcastle to build on.

Ckey/BYOND Username : kyres1 Position Being Applied For : Deputy loremaster Have you read the Lore Team Rules and Regulations wiki page? : Yes. Past Experiences/Knowledge : About four-five years(if you count mid-2017 under cake and now, probably up to six) on the lore team, with two(?) resignations over those five years. About a year and a half of experience as deputy LM. Multiple years as synthdev and synth deputy. I don't know how long I've been a spriter, or spriting for the server for that matter. Examples of Past Work : The SLF Incursion Arc, the original Purpose arcs, most synthetic wiki writing, the background summary for lore, lots of wiki work including the main page and some guides. The second Elyra rework (the one before this last one), and almost total supervision (I think) of the King of the World arc and its sub-arcs. Probably more I'm forgetting. A brief note (such as a roadmap with additional descriptions) identifying the course and creative direction that you'd hopefully like to pursue : With NBT finally here, I would mostly like to delve into the lore we've been aching to see for what feels like eons now. I would like to take the ship on a spin through existing lore and try my best to encourage our best development on what we'll end up seeing next. Criticism of the current state of lore : Zero ability for moderation or motivation on direction or overall planning. Besides twice-thrice daily pings about what the loremaster is doing, the team has very little sway on part of not really chipping in on the active state of lore unless directly ordered otherwise. That said, the team is fantastic at accomplishing these tasks when they're laid out before them, but there is no real way to handle every writer's needs or obligations properly when you're just one person (hence, the addition of a deputy loremaster to assist.) What do you believe you can bring to the team as Deputy Loremaster : Experience, moderation and hopefully, putting some of our less active teams into gear with motivation. Additional Comments : The decision to make this application is one that I've received plenty of mean words over. I do not care about these words anymore and honestly want to see this server prosper more than anything. Hopefully being here for years and all the work I've put in is enough to prove this, at least. Also, my previous resignation was made due to life circumstances piling up against me. I am not intending to go into detail about these circumstances, but I am certain it won't happen again.