Jump to content

ben10083

CCIA
  • Content Count

    614
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About ben10083

  • Rank
    NanoTrasen Official
  • Birthday 16/01/2002

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey
    ben10083

Recent Profile Visitors

529 profile views
  1. I agree with limitations, there are some jobs that straight up need communication (A mute Captain or FT would be extremely annoying). Honestly I must admit I am biased however, as I dislike any interaction with mute characters as it is annoying to get anything done with them, but thats just me. TLDR: Some jobs should have disability restrictions, namely those where communication or other functions impacted by a disability is paramount.
  2. Not sure about this tbh, for the following reasons: 1. Allowing such personnel defence weapons will encourage many to have such tools "just in case", which will make it more difficult for antags (spray and run away/call sec) (flash and run away/call sec) etc. 2. Knifes are so weak that no one will use it in a actual combat scenario if they find themselves in one (why use a weak knife when a fist is stronger?) 3. Such hostile encounters said are considered rare in canon, as such allowing crew to have limited weapons has not much of a reason behind it 4. Could have the door open to further contraband reg rollbacks, which is a bad direction to head in. Overall I feel that this change has less pros (rp) than cons (see above). -1
  3. Problem It is hard to know what crewmembers have CCIA notes without checking every single person in the employment record console, making enforcement of CCIA punishments difficult Solution A new feature is added the employment record console that lists personnel who have CCIA Notes. This will allow personnel to easily identify any injunctions they need to be aware of as well as any important notes to consider.
  4. Even if they were desired to be removed, there is a 30 day grace period where we allow the playerbase to get used to a change and gauge it more effectively until revert is on the table.
  5. TO: Oscar Easter, Security Officer (Contractor), NSS Aurora FROM: CCIAAMS, NTCC Odin SUBJECT: RE: Incident Report -------------------- BODY: This is an automated message to inform you that an investigation has now been opened regarding your incident report, and assigned to Benedict Smith (ben10083). You may be contacted by the CCIAA for an interview, or you may contact them directly if you have any questions. -------------------- DTG: 14-11:52-TAU CETI STANDARD-06-2461 SIGN: CCIAAMS
  6. TO: Oscar Easter, Security Officer (Contractor), NSS Aurora FROM: AMS, CCIAAMS, NTCC Odin SUBJECT: RE: Incident Report -------------------- BODY: This is an automated message to inform you that your incident report has been received and placed in a queue for the CCIA Division to review. If necessary, you will be contacted by a CCIA Agent when an investigation begins. -------------------- DTG: 14-11:08-TAU CETI STANDARD-06-2461 SIGN: CCIAAMS
  7. for the TCFL poster, I greatly prefer the first iteration, which is very similar to current poster but with one major difference...
  8. I feel it will be best to just stop looking at the results of a very old poll which is outdated, and make a new one. The results of this new poll will show us how to move forward, otherwise we will get nowhere.
  9. I understand the crux if your argument, but how do you feel such an issue can be resolved? Command staff are expected to follow regulations and ither policies just like everyone else is.
  10. TO: Dwayne Darson , Security Officer, NSS Aurora FROM: Benedict Smith, CCIAA, NTCC Odin SUBJECT: RE: Incident Report -------------------- BODY: The investigation of this incident has concluded, and appropriate action has been taken for affected individuals. This matter will now be considered resolved. -------------------- DTG: 06-09:02-TAU CETI STANDARD-06-2461 SIGN: Benedict Smith
  11. A ban is not the only way to deal with such a situation, I am not aware of the finer details of how moderators or admins deal with such situations, but I assume it is similar to how we deal with it, taking account in many factors including the incident itself when deciding punishment. A IR effectively makes the incident canon, as such, antag involvement usually invalidates the possibility of an IR and opens the door for a OOC solution.
  12. Yet you can't help mix things up for the factions if there are so many BS factions, too much freedom in this sense is a bad thing, sticking with predetermined companies is fine, and if you really want your mining company added, make a lore canonization request.
  13. Although this would have been an interesting IR, the vox is a antag, and IRs can be used when antag interactions are the crux of why said incident occured, hence the OOC punishment.
  14. Typically when I create a character (that is human) I usually just change up the hair and maybe the facial hair if I feel creative. The real customization goes into what I have them wear and what they have. In the Universe where literally trillions of humans/bug people/furries cat people/robutts/ and squids, it really isn't that rare to find people who look somewhat similar. Also, no one has said yet how this is a issue worth all the time and effort to memorize the literal thousands of different characters and check each one that joins a round to make sure that their cat person does not match cat person #1421 or #4123, not to mention the workload increase to do all this. Overall, I see this as a non-issue that would be difficult to moderate, and we already have player/character complaints if you find carbon copies. Also, ffs @AmoryBlaine stop being so passive aggressive towards Garn. -1
×
×
  • Create New...