MattAtlas

Not against this, honestly. Put up a PR and I can testmerge it.

What does "K6" mean exactly? You write that it is a "reminder of where he started in the company", but I'm not sure how that ties into the acronym.

Ckey/BYOND Username: MattAtlas Position Being Applied For: Human Deputy Lore Developer Have you read the Lore Team Rules and Regulations wiki page? Yes. How long have you been part of the community for? Since August 2017. Past Experiences/Knowledge: Examples of Past Work: See above. Why are you applying for this position and why do you believe you would make a good Human Lore Deputy? What is your favourite part of Human Lore and why? What is your least favourite? What are three projects (medium to large sized additions, reworks, or arcs) you would like to do or help organize if made Human Lore deputy? What do you believe are the current strengths and weaknesses of human lore? Why? What would you do to improve upon the weaknesses? Recently there has been discussion in the community and among the lore teams about Offworlder Humans. If made deputy, what is something you would want to do with Offworlder Humans as a whole and/or their various factions? There is a current open thread on community suggestions for a planet page for Eridani I. If you are accepted as a human lore deputy, you along with the rest of the Human Lore Team, would work on this planet. What are some things that you would like to implement on Eridani I's new planet page if given the opportunity? Have you ever be subject to any strikes or bans of any kind from Aurora's moderators or admins? If so, how long ago were these actions and what were they for? One strike in 2018 for posting a copypasta in the discord general chat. One warning on my server account for 'rude behaviour in a staff complaint' from 2020.

We did not.

Not sure what you are talking about here. Security had none of their weapons removed.

Accepted on trial.

This is accepted.

Accepted.

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.