MattAtlas

If you are going to drop your opinion on a topic, repeat it several times and (by your own admission, also not give any argumentation) later give a sarcastic reply to someone telling you that you aren't really giving any constructive ideas or feedback to the matter at hand (which is clearly an implicit way of asking you for elaboration), then that is bad faith arguing and it is as clear cut as it can get. I am not changing my resolution on this complaint.

So I looked into the logs. Most of the conversation is okay, until you get to this part. Not really sure how else to call this other than bad faith arguing. If you were trying to be serious as you said then you would not have said "yes, and?" to someone asking you to elaborate on your arguments, and it is absolutely within a discord moderator's power to warn someone for shitposting/bad faith arguing during an actual discussion. This complaint will be closed in 24 hours.

I disagree. I think if you are playing part of a faction that is at the bottom of the barrel as far as you can possibly get (you are playing an underclass already as a dreg, and on top of that you add another layer of being stateless), the least you could do is roleplay the struggles of such a situation properly: you are intentionally picking the worst situation possible for your character, after all. If it's not wanted, that's fine - the stateless element can just be removed, as it should be in my opinion. But I think that romanticizing statelessness to this level does not do justice to the situation present in real life. As for if it can be changed, sure it can, but it is currently not possible and anyone doing this right now is breaking the lore. The Origins system is an OOC guide - you can't go outside of what's mechanically possible there. If you don't have a No Citizenship option, then you can't say that your character has no citizenship.

Additionally, here is a source to back up my claim about informal education: https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/44600408.pdf And here is a relevant snippet:

I do not appreciate the passive aggressive tone you used here. An informal education system is not recognized by a state by virtue of being informal. Your education obtained in Eridani as a dreg would mean absolutely nothing in Biesel. You'd have to take standardized testing or accelerated classes, or even worse -- you'd likely have to re-do several levels of education, because education would actually in fact be that bad. As for rigid immigration and citizenship systems, I think you'll find that you should not group Europe together in one giant list. Nonetheless, I am not here to discuss politics. Let's look at the Biesel citizenship page: You cannot easily obtain a Biesellite citizenship as a dreg. You'd need to be in Biesel for two years, which is not a slim amount of time! And while we are on that topic, why would stateless dregs be able to be on the SCCV Horizon, a flagship vessel? It is very dissonant, to me. In short, what you said in your second point is completely wrong. Biesel does have a strict citizenship requirement, in that you need to live there for at least two years. Additionally, you are lying about Brazilian citizenship: Four years of permanent residency are required (bar certain reductions due to specific factors - which require marriage to a diplomat/national/special work) to obtain a Brazilian citizenship, unlike what you stated -- which is "you get citizenship just from entering the nation", and this is completely false. I believe your third point is the most offensive one. Not only have you used an actual slur, you also stated something completely wrong. Roma people are European citizens. Since you believe I did not do my research, here are my sources: https://www.unicef.org/thailand/livesuntold https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/8086/file https://www.unhcr.org/protection/statelessness/546217229/special-report-ending-statelessness-10-years.html I believe you could also link your own sources, factually wrong as they are.

The situation of stateless dregs in this document is heavily romanticized in respect to what the actual situation of a stateless person in real life is. The only things mentioned in this document are basically the SCC treating you like every other dreg (dregs cannot be heads of staff, so there are really no promotions to hold someone against, unless it's an intern position but restricting people to internship positions is extremely bad). To be clear, stateless people often cannot access any medical services, go to school, get hired at all (because you are a gigantic liability) and often have troubles with freedom of movement. If stateless dregs get re-added, their condition should be miserable if anything, and you are also going to risk overlap with normal dregs anyway - as they are also considered non-citizens by the Eridanian state. Do remember that it is currently not mechanically possible for dregs to have no citizenship in game, so if anyone has been doing that on the ship, they are intentionally and willingly playing an archetype that is not possible and is not approved by lore. For all intents and purposes, I think dreg citizenships should not be removed by the Eridanian state, they should just go "Yeah that person does not actually exist" or "We don't care", even if they have one. I'm not sure how I feel about the "work hard play hard" part for suits, mainly because I feel like it overlaps with Cytherea quite a lot to a degree I would not personally really risk. I get that it may not be the intention, but that's probably how it will be interpreted, in my view. I think the rest is fine, content-wise.

Because it's not just about the questions but also the competence and decision making you can show in game. Sure, questions paint a picture, but not the whole story. If you get your trial period you're basically most of the way there, you just need to not fuck up colossally. AI whitelists are not command whitelists and they are handled by different people with different standards. Comparing the two does not make sense and should be avoided. Of course, if staff know that a player is well established and have seen them on the server plenty, they can accept them regardless. You can see that this happened in the past to people who you could not really call "old/established players". And considering the volume of Command whitelist applications we get (which is pretty significant, honestly, and most of the people that apply have played for maybe 1-2 months at most) I don't really buy that the situation is as dire as you make it out to be. We could discuss adding a minimum playtime required (three weeks?) and specifying that one-two posts of positive feedback are required for an application to go through, bar whitelist handler endorsement, but like Garn said it's a bit problematic to measure playtime. I can say that you need to play "three weeks", but the way the server measures playtime is "days since first login", not "time played", which makes the addition of any real hard requirement kind of bullshit, since we can't measure how much someone has actually played. Hence the requirement for feedback.

I unbanned your brother so you should be able to connect, but if he reconnects and does this shit again and gets banned, this will end up being automatically reapplied.

Your tone was extremely aggressive and you should not be replying to people like that.

@NG+7 Gael I hid your last post because it was absolutely unacceptable to reply to someone like this. Do that again and I am banning you from the game as well.

We deny people based on playtime only if they're very, very new -- we're talking one or two weeks worth of playtime. At that point you aren't really ready to be a Head of Staff, mainly because you aren't familiar with OOC proceedings regarding security (which you will need to handle, a lot, every time, no matter what Head of Staff you play -- acting captainship comes to mind) or, in general, how command staff is supposed to act. You can go to the archives and see how often we deny people for low playtime. I, myself, got my head of staff whitelist in 2017 after a month of playing, and 3-4 weeks is the standard we generally expect. We can't do this, as it's a form of seeing player activity that's a bit easier to see than by using the WI (since we have to go character-by-character and some people have a lot of characters). It also ensures that we aren't dealing with people that are practically transparent IC. We can't do this either. I already argued my thoughts on active playtime to a large extent in this thread: If you aren't active or committed, I have no real reason to give you a whitelist.

On trial until 29JUL2022.

On trial until 29JUL2022.

Given the amount of notes and the amount of times you broke our trust on the server, I cannot in good faith allow you back in. I simply cannot trust you as an individual and I am more than certain that you would end up banned again. Denied.

Main issue I can see is that this makes holsters completely useless, as you would be able to just put a pistol in a webbing or drop pouches.

Accepted.

Sorry for the delay. Accepted.

Archiving.

This is Voigt's reasoning for the mutiny charge, mentioned IC. This definitely fits, so I'm not sure why the charge was contested. This is Abbasi's reasoning for charging the reporter. This also fits because, as described on the corp regs wiki: Then, Abbasi says this, I presume, on security comms: And here are CSSU's objections: It seems to me like you did a lot more than "being absent from the round" and "I only said mutiny doesn't freed once". You knew that they were to be charged with mutiny, you directly objected to it (as you were speaking to the warden that was charging the prisoner), the head of security told you that it should have been mutiny, you doubled down on it, then the HoS repeated that it should have been mutiny, you doubled down on it again, and said "Fight me". You can definitely be charged as a co-conspirator here, if all you had was a "moral objection", why on Earth did you triple down like this? As for the warden, it is kind of hard for security to charge them too when you're being so flagrant about this. In their minds you were probably the brain behind the sedition charge, so to speak. I'm sure the warden would've been investigated if it wasn't round end too, but I don't think they had the time or mental capacity to do that at the same time as your arrest. So, I am ruling this complaint as a non-issue. It will be locked in 24 hours.

Entirely new character is preferrable.

From what I have seen, I cannot allow you to play this character as a head of security at all, and I would rather not have you retcon a character so you can play them as a head of staff.

I think your roleplay needs some work. Joel does not seem to be a particularly developed character from the cursory interactions I've had with them, and I have seen some questionable handling of some situations. However, I think you have potential, so I'll be accepting this application. You should work mainly on getting a better understanding of other departments, branching out in your characters (specifically, I would like to see you play a head of staff that is not a continuation of your current character, and to use more exotic planets from human lore -- think New Hai Phong, Gadpathur, Dominia and so on) and your roleplay in general, in the future.

Here are our rules on end of round conflict: Therefore, this entire debacle happening at round end does not really break the rules if it has proper reasoning. I will say, from a cursory look of the complaint, it does seem like the charge on you was justified. However, @Faye <3 could you please comment on your side of events (specifically, why a mutiny charge was chosen, and why the IPC was charged with aiding and abetting instead of something else)? It is not really a good look for you to say "fight me over it" to a HoS. Under any circumstance ever this would have gotten you arrested. The rest of your sentence does make it seem like you were specifically aiding the detainee by going around a HoS' order and suggesting a new charge.

On trial until 20JUL2022.

This appeal is denied. First and foremost: do remember that we are under no obligation to strike you first. As per our Discord's rules, staff may ban at their descretion. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable for me to believe that, since you sent a message after your internet died, you have the capability to continue sending messages, through mobile data or whatever else. Secondly, I do not believe you understand the social gravity of using a profile picture that represents one of the worst Nazi brigades to exist. For your profile picture, and thus something you associate with or like, you chose to use an anime representation of one of the worst set of people in Human history, with all the crimes connected to them. I will not go into details about what exactly the Dirlewanger brigade is on this forum post, but alarm bells should have rang in your mind. Your profile picture is something people see and relate to you every time you speak. Your irony, or whatever other reason you had for choosing this image as your profile picture, is not something that reaches people that do not play the HoI4 mod you mentioned. And even then, you should have the basic social sense to keep these two spheres (what you associate with and "funny memes", even if I have no idea why you would find the Dirlewanger Brigade funny or relatable) separate. Given that you defended the usage of your profile picture and that you, in your original post, admitted that you "could debate that it's appropriate", I simply cannot trust you to 1) not associate with what you put in your profile picture and 2) make good judgements as expected of a normal community member. In addition, I would like you to know that using your profile picture in Germany, Austria or Brazil is a crime. Do not appeal this ban. It will never be lifted.