MattAtlas

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.

1. I didn't say strips are arbitrary. There's a staff complaint system in place to make sure that they are not. Whitelists can be stripped for other reasons if they are found to be appropriate. 2. This isn't a slippery slope. Just because I want to remove the whitelists of people that haven't played in a year, doesn't mean I'll end up banning random people. 3. I already said this enough in the comments. I'm not going to repeat myself.

1. This is how they can prove they can still play command - by undergoing the app+trial. I want to have them do this first to again minimize the chances of things going wrong in the nbt tests. 2. Whitelists don't only get removed for misbehaviour and it has never been said that their removal only happens because of it. Removal is at the discretion of the whitelist team 3. Applying for command is not cumbersome: the application is massively simplified compared to years ago, it's now fifteen minutes odd of writing with a seven day trial where you're free to play command as you want to. 4. I explained why in the comments a few times already. As for people hopping onto other servers to play command, they're free to do it if they don't want to go through a very simple reapplication process. There's more to Aurora than just command roles.

I'm going to address the three different bits here. 1. Activity is a factor in command whitelists. You need to be active enough to actually get feedback so that we know you've played rounds and are well integrated into the server. If you haven't played since 2017-2018, and you came back now, the server would be entirely different, and your competency (thus, capability to play a role) would be severely worse. You may have come and gone fairly often, but you're a moderator and inadvertently, through that position, keep being updated on server matters. 2. We do have a system for removing whitelists, but that does not account for what will be the tide of returning players when the NBT comes. I would like as few rounds as possible to be affected by command players like the ones described in the post. To be frank, getting a command whitelist is not at all hard, and a returning player quitting because of them being forced to reapply is a little weird. 3. Being made to reapply is not a punishment, and this is also not something we plan to do again. There's nothing being held against you in the future. All you'll need to do is go through the very simple application process and get your whitelist back. At most it would take a week or two of playing, enough to get a few people vouching for you, and then you're set again.

They would have to remake the application anyway, yes, but applications are like maybe 15 minutes of effort at most. We need them to make a forum thread anyway so we can track things like when they re-applied, characters, etc.

Approved, although you'll have to check if this is actually doable codewise, as I think it is but I'm not 100% sure.

This is approved with the caveat that the normal version is added to the loadout while Eden gets the custom-colored cape.

We haven't required character backstories in command apps for years now. Besides, the trial is just 7 days where you can play anything in command bar consular. And your app goes on trial in 3 days anyway.