MattAtlas

Maybe on the light tube itself, but not as actual lighting. Don't think it's worth the performance overhead.

Good idea. I will test this out shortly.

Possible, although maybe a different color would be good? Orange or blue?

Made some modifications following Danse's suggestion. I added the light randomization. Here's what the new hallway looks like. Notice the different lights in robotics. Additionally, I made it so that hallway lights become red on code red. Examples: Surface is basically all red because it's a giant hallway.

Pretty sure you can't self dislocate limbs to escape cuffs. Don't really have an issue with cuff breaks in general, as antagonists breaking cuffs constantly are just going to be borged or executed on the spot.

Dionae should not be considered as a factor, neither should plants. I will personally tweak their numbers to be equal to before should this cause any issues.

Where? If you look at the current code screenshots, there isn't a single tile in rooms with lights on that's below full brightness. Which changes do you mean? Rooms starting unlit? Moodier lighting held up perfectly fine in other servers.

Marginally less bright. It used to be 0.6 as opposed to 0.8, whereas normal lighting is now 0.45 and night lighting is 0.4 on average.

I was toying around with lighting earlier since fullbright medbay was annoying me, and found some values that I think look nicer overall. I would like to PR these, so please tell me your thoughts. Pay specific attention to things like newscasters, computer lighting popping out more. Current medbay: New medbay: Current security lobby: New security lobby: Current hallway: New hallway: I can provide more pictures if required.

The administrative side of the note isn't available to players, you are correct, because it's staff-only info on a player's conduct. Generally, in 99% of the notes we place that field is left empty. In some cases, like yours, administrators fill it to tell other admins about their experience or what the minimum punishment for another infraction should be. As for the contents of the note itself, if someone has a questionable attitude in ahelps or keeps missing the point (as was the case in our ticket) I note it down so that staff don't waste their time on conversations that aren't exactly fruitful. Since that was the feeling I got from my conversation with you, and I'm not going to go into particulars unless you specifically want me to, I put it down like that. I maintain that my judgement was correct. I also don't exactly moderate my thoughts in private conversations, because I have no reason to. That note is private, so it shouldn't have been shown to you anyway. Had I wrote down something along the lines of "This player completely missed the point of our conversation multiple times", the outcome would've been the same. Complaining about the contents of a private note would be the same thing as complaining about someone saying some nasty shit in discord DMs about someone else - that's not really our prerogative unless it's something extremely bad. You had a lot of notes by that point and considering the contents of the ticket I could not justify you not being banned if another security related infraction happened, hence why I put that disclaimer there. You're wrong in saying that the negative bias "wouldn't otherwise exist". You should be banned if you do get warned, then do the same kind of thing again. That's how punishment escalation works. I place these notes to make sure that staff actually go through with the escalation. Escalation would still have been the same after that warning. I in fact specifically told her to warn you instead of banning you because enough time had passed to think that you probably learnt your lesson and just had a minor fuck up, as things like that happen to everyone.

Accepted.

Approved.

Okay, as an update, here's what we've done two days ago. Instead of stripping the command whitelists of people that haven't logged on X amount of times in Y hours, we've instead opted to strip the whitelists of those that haven't linked their forum account to their ckey, which we told every whitelisted player to do since July of last year. Additionally, we will be more strict with whitelistees that won't get themselves up to date on the NBT and things like that. I'll lock this thread, given that it served its purpose.

This is fine by me. It accomplishes the same thing. No problem; I get how these arguments can become. I don't hold feistiness against anyone in this thread. Well, the gameplay loop is inherently security-centric because the antagonists are the main thing that generates conflict on the server, and security is there to stop them, which means the focus as a whole is on those two parts. The thing is, the current status quo is hard to change without relaxing standards, which is not something I particularly want to do.

Let's not pretend that this is what I said, please. "Highpop is in no shortage of command members that are actually necessary for the game to function at its best - e.g HoS and Captain." does not mean that only security is important, not only because the Captain's not security, but also because I said "necessary for the game to function at its best". Security, the main force counteracting antagonists, and thus the main gameplay loop is handicapped without a Head of Security (doubly so if they're without a warden). An engineering department with no CE runs without issues of that caliber. Same with medical and CMOs. Same with scientists and RDs. I said the command population is fine as is as a reply to someone mentioning that this strip would thin it out more. It's not the case.

You don't need a full command roster. Many rounds during the day have no population at all because most of the day is lowpop. Highpop is in no shortage of command members that are actually necessary for the game to function at its best - e.g HoS and Captain.

Because by the time we can nab someone's whitelist for messing up an entire round, the damage's already been done, and I'd like the NBT tests to be as smooth as possible.

Accepted.

C looks great, but you need to add some shading, I think. Particularly around the edges and on the inside.

I'm not asking that people be always online; you don't even have to play command to retain your whitelist. The strip is a one time thing for people that haven't played at all in a year. Our current command population is fine and is not made up of any of the people that this strip would target. Functionally, this would change nothing about the current pop, and would only prevent issues in the NBT. It isn't a punishment. Nothing is being held against you in the future. Reapply and you can get it back without issue. This doesn't make it any easier for them. If they have to make a whitelist application, at that point we should trial them to see if they're actually up to par. There are no big restrictions on what you can and can't do on a trial, functionally it's the same as having the whitelist.

Yes, it's a one time thing for the NBT.

This isn't a new policy nor would it be one. This is what I said in the OP: This wouldn't be a recurring thing, it'd be a one time strip, and I specified it in the comments too. I wouldn't strip the whitelist of someone that doesn't break any server rules or whitelist policies, no. If what you're hinting at is that I'm going to strip people's whitelists for arbitrary reasons, that's not going to happen.

It doesn't.

1. No. They did not necessarily pass the trial. We didn't have trials before 2018-2019. 2. This is one of those occasions where you could justifiably remove the whitelist of someone without there being a ban in place. 3. It's correct, in my opinion, for me to say that antagonist, security and overall character culture has changed a lot even in the past four years. I in fact think that most captains and head of security from 2016 that don't actively play wouldn't be up to the standard without some bwoinking. I didn't mention lore arcs in my posts, I mention two main issues: character quality and competency. While it's true that yes, some roles like RD and CE haven't changed much, we don't whitelist for individual roles. Someone we give a command whitelist to is also trusted to play captain and head of security, and most of the players I outlined do in fact come back to play captain and head of security. The latter two roles aren't the same now as they were that long ago. Not only because of changing expectations on security, but also because of changing expectations on how much leeway you're supposed to give antagonists. Not to mention that captains have immense power over the round and can often completely monopolize events as they see fit. This is also without mentioning how whitelist standards are tighter now in general.