ReadThisNamePlz

Post has been hidden until the end of the round, as you are not meant to make appeals until the round you were "punished" in, ends.

The "criteria" is as follows - A constructive personality that adds to the overall flow of the round, and does not attempt to fill any specific role. You told me point blank that your AI is meant to be a "Ship security focused personality." If you want to be security focused, then go play Security. AI are tools to assist the crew and assist in the flow of the round remaining smoothly. You, as an AI, should not be attempting to make contact with antags, or even overtly monitoring them. If you're ordered to watch them? Go for it, but within reason. The logs and screenshots I was shown was more than enough to paint the picture that you were overly excited to be engaging with the antags, or eager to be involved in general. You were spoken to twice before about your interactions with Antagonists as an AI. From what the notes painted, and this round showed, you hadn't learned entirely. Yes, you made attempts to change the behavior, and I applaud you for it. Growth is good, but it does not always mean it is enough. You simply should not have an AI personality based on "Security". You're a tool, but you're not a glorified security camera. You're there, like command, to help the flow of the round. But you do not have the same duties as command. OOC Thought has to be put into how you play as well. Saying things like "They are confiscating our weapons" immediately after you leave a holopad to go look at them? That's a no-go man. You immediately outed their actions because you wanted to be a glorified camera. This behavior is exactly why we have an AI whitelist. It might seem minor to you, or even insignificant, but we have dealt with this kind of thing on the server for years, and it's because of this, that we have such a strict whitelist for it. Hence why I want you to observe how other AIs play, interact and overall impact the round. A good AI will fulfill the ships security, sure, but not in an overbearing way. A lot of them will see it, and ooc they'll go "well how has the round gone so far? Will outing them kill the gimmick? Will it prevent their story from being driven?" AI is not just IC. It is extremely OOC as well. You have to be able to balance it. And right now, I just do not think you have that balance.

It was “quick” because the “criteria” that I have set for a whitelist strip was all simultaneously met within a single ticket/round. Overall, I found the player lacking the behavior we look for when it comes to our AI whitelists. It’s nothing against Sputnik or their AI, I just believe they need to stick around a bit more, watch how other AIs are played, then go from there.

Before we can continue, Alb and I need specific examples of the behavior that you are talking about, @WickedCybs

Did you buy your computer from someone? Is it used? Do you use a public wifi network, like a dorm, or barracks?

Hi. I'm going to take over this, give me a bit to look further into this.

If neither of you have anything else to add, I'll be closing this shortly.

Let me clarify further. Staff members are allowed to handle issues in discord, engaged or not- but in a case like this, where you're seen as instigating the reaction from Marlon (whether it was intended or not), you should not be the one to hand out the strike, regardless of previous behavior. Marlon did nothing here, from what I can see, aside from defend his past work- something that anyone would do in his situation. If Marlon responded with "It was not bullshit you (insert whatever slur or insult you want here)" then it'd be fine for you to strike them. But since Marlon simply took a respectful and defensive position against you calling his work "bullshit", you really should not have been the one to strike him, regardless of past history. He did not get aggressive in his replies, and he did not portray anything that was in violation of rule two. I am not saying you cannot intervene when someone goes off the rails in a conversation, I am simply saying that in this specific case, he did nothing to warrant the strike. I understand your reasoning, but I am struggling to see where Marlon violated any rules by simply defending his position regarding his past work.

I meant to post this at noon, I'm unsure as to why this just now posted. Anyway..... After taking time to review this complaint, and after I've spoken to another staff member, I am going to rule that the strike is inproper. Alberyk should not have applied a strike for this as he was directly engaged in the conversation. Alberyk took a firm stance on a view, this is shown by the choice of words used. "(which was bullshit)", of which directly violates the second rule of the discord- "Rule 2: Don't be a dick. Harassing or belittling other users, or using intentionally discriminatory language/remarks/phrases will be punished." By utilizing the term "bullshit", Alberyk directly insulted the work of a past lore-master, and regardless of the view on the previous lore or events hosted, respect should be maintained at all times. The strike is inproper, and the conduct of Alberyk will be discussed internally. @Marlon P. is there anything you'd like to add to this before I wrap it up?

Hello, I am taking over for Faris. Please allow me a few hours to reach a conclusion.

I'll be reaching out to you shortly.

Sorry for the delay. Work's been hectic. Approved! Enjoy your command!

Alrighty, I've let this sit for a few days to allow you to collect feedback. I'll go ahead and give you a weeks trial. It'll end 7-10-22. Good luck!

Security is going to be involved with antagonists no matter what we do. No matter what we add/remove/rework, Security will always end up getting in a firefight- or atleast 80% of the time. So why would adding in another option to attack/steal from be such a bad thing? This just adds a new target for the antagonist, that will also provide them with rewards that are worth the time. Below are scenarios and how they usually play out. They're "spoiled" so they prevent a massive post. My point is, that no matter what we do/add/remove/rework, the formula is there. And because the formula is there, it shouldn't be a reason to prevent something - like a vault - from being added. It'll add another option/goal for attackers, whether it's on-station traitors, or off station pirates. And worst case? If it's really really bad? I'll just undo it. But I really think that saying "It'll end in a firefight" is kind of pointless. Almost every antagonist interaction will end in some sort of firefight or combat encounter.

I feel like it'd provide better variation from what we see currently. Which seems to be just - Steal the nuke or rob the armory after getting the Captains office. There isn't any other high value area to really hit. Will this provide another issue for Security? Sure it will. That's kind of the point- the vault is, and always has been antag bait. But this will also give us another place to store things that just make sense. The Aurora having a vault? Didn't make much sense. But a ship that is literally going to be going into deep, uncharted space? Makes a lot of sense to me, in all honesty.

I appreciate the position you've taken, but I have to argue that the reason of 'it can't be detonated without the scc' is fundamentally flawed. A nuclear device, regardless of the activation method, should not be sitting in a public hallway behind a single door. The Captains office has more security than the nuclear bomb. Shoot, even xenobiology does. The command bunker has more isolation than the device that can destroy the ship? I just don't find it very believable. The vaults contents are going to be reworked- I'm working on the PR for the safe contents, and the items that spawn on the tables inside. It's going to be relatively small as well, and while the gimmicks may be a bit boring in some cases- it allows for a different goal that isn't just - "I'm gonna steal the nuke!" (insert Nicholas Cage) - or, "We're going to silently rob the armory then take the ship!".

Alright, so. I've been thinking. The scuttling device is way too accessible, and I don't like that we lack a vault. I want to move the scuttling device from deck three, to deck one- and put it under the AI chamber. There is a perfect area for it, and it's way more secure. It'd make a lot more sense in my opinion to have it there. The command bunker has way more secrecy/security than the ships SCUTTLING device. Like. C'mon. Secondly, I want to put a vault in the spot that the current scuttle device is. Why? 1. Antags need more targets than just the Armory, scuttling device or Captains office. 2. I want to change up the corporate safe container, give it more.. updated items. 3. The thermal drill safe is a pointless buy. I could remove it from the uplinks, but where's the fun in that? 4. A vault would also allow for high-value items to be securely stored in a place that only Command could access. I don't want Security to store a automatic shotgun that's found on an away site, in the armory and then use it against some poor vampire or traitor. I do not want to make this a PR without feedback. I'd place the nuke here. I'd have to change it up a bit, but I think it honestly makes the most sense.

Honestly, make certain booze types flammable. Beer? Nah. Tequilla/Vodka? Yeah. That'd balance it out/add to the realism. Pure ethanol should be the most flammable though.

The AI can announce, contact Central, and interface with almost anything on the ship already. Power, emitters, doors, atmospherics, etc. Alert level should most certainly be within their ability to change. There is not always command or bridge crew present, and security can only do so much on code green by regulation. Definitely let the AI have alert level access. +1. Idk about ship controlling though!

I feel like this ship should be treated the same way that the burglar pod was treated on the Aurora. EE is antagonistic for the SCC in nature. We had an entire "arc" that involved them and their actions on station. From boarding and projecting major power with their asset protection/bullying NanoTrasen, to winning some really "big wig" court case about the engines, to even having operatives board and sabotage the station/shoot some crew. The ship should be treated as "soft antags". They open up, are given the same expectations as the burglar pod is, and set free to do whatever a spy ship would do.

Honestly, as long as you understand you cannot continue going SSD, I'll lift this. Sorry for the delay, it's been a wild week.

"Please clarify if starting a fight with security, with no build-up, character motivation, nor hope of success, that late in the round would have been okay in this situation -- Or what I should have done instead -- And help me understand why?" I wasn't saying to start a fight with no escalation or anything. I said "When in doubt, the revolver and heavy armor exists." or something along those lines. I don't recall the exact thing I said, because I barely even remember this interaction. If I remember properly, I said this because 1.) You were already being watched by Security, so I was merely suggesting if you want to do something against them, the loud option exists and would provide lots of escalation. 2.) You were a traitor. Probably the most versatile antagonist type aside from mercenary. If you're being stalked by an AI/Security, you have every right to use that as escalation/reason to start f*cking things up. Atleast in my opinion. I can't comment on the round time but I'm pretty sure it was like, an hour into the round. But generally I do not have an issue if antagonists start things up later into the round, if it is not entirely out of the blue. And in this case, you were already being framed/stalked, so the building blocks were there. But if you're really wanting to know why I said "when in doubt, the revolver and heavy armory exists", it was just me suggesting to go against Security for being overzealous. I think I okay'd it because the other antag was framing you. But again, I barely remember this because I didn't see much of an issue with the whole situation. Sorry for confusing you though, it is never my intention to confuse players.

I was not sure of this at first, but after seeing the "Code Red Integration", I could not want this anymore than I do now. Make. This. Happen.

This is your tape