MattAtlas

This idea has merit. I will bring this up and formulate my own thoughts tomorrow. Thus far I like this.

After reviewing the evidence, Strudel and I have decided that in this context what Fernando did was acceptable to end the round, as the round had clearly run its course. However, chloraling the antag is still quite cheap and powergamey. We are considering this fine because of the future change in the hyposprays. As long as it is held as a last-last result however it will be fine. Satin will be spoken to about these kind of situations and other less-common powergaming situations and how to handle them. We are considering this resolved and locking this in 24h.

Alright, I've let this thread sit for too long. Apologies. The only remaining issue I find here is that Willow willingly went to an area with confirmed hostile presence by the AI to retrieve the medkit. Berry agrees me with in this. The ruling I'm about to give is that all Rosetango should do is avoid active situations such as raider presence unless they have a very good RP reason to be there-- and retrieving your medkit isn't a good reason. A verbal warning will suffice, I believe. Locking and arching, deemed resolved.

https://pastebin.com/unHTEKtk Interview.

Very good, I will contact you for an interview in the coming days.

Right. Our current thoughts on the situation are that there was no reason a janitor would go to an area with reported hostiles to acquire a medkit. It's frankly nonsensical. Furthermore, I completely disagree with the idea of a random crewmember ordering a medkit at roundstart to 'help out the medbay' or anything along those lines. It should be restricted to emergency situations. This applies to stocking up medical supplies as well-- it shouldn't be done in normal conditions. With the excuse given, it makes little sense to me that someone who fears blood would get themselves mixed in with blood by bandaging people's wounds. Berry agrees with my thoughts on the situation. Reply to my comment if you have anything else to say.

@DatBerry and I will be taking this complaint.

1. I do accept that if I go SSD again, I will either ahelp it or go off to cryo/dorms, and understand that failing to do so will result in further punishment. 2. I will keep my character in security, if there are no security positions I will either play as a visitor, or on another character. Thank you for considering this. Alright. Appeal resolved, security jobban lifted.

I can accept this appeal and lift your warden ban as well, provided that: 1) You strictly understand that if you SSD again without reasonable cause, without ahelping or going to cryo, the same punishment will be applied, except this time you won't be able to appeal for a long time. 2) You will keep your character in Security, you will not job hop with your security character. Reply to me when you accept these two terms and I'll lift your ban.

Skrell with helmets look completely retarded right now, so yes please.

Application denied due to lack of feedback. We also do not personally think you are ready to be a head of staff yet.

The "conditions" did not warrant absolutely any hostility. They were a simple set of questions to see whether or not you had improved from your Discord ban and if you changed your attitude. With your response, you confirmed that nothing changed, and so we extended the appeal period. Now, Aboshehab has gone over the complaint itself. I am going to go over why we banned you and why we denied your appeal. Let's take a look. - Why did we ban you from the Discord? Quite simply, it is because of the completely unacceptable attitude you displayed. You said you had 'good will' in mind, and that you argued, but a quick look at what you said tells a completely different story. In fact, I have some quotes. You even admitted to having the rules channel muted, it was you that said you 'enjoyed pissing on' Scheveningen. What you said was completely not out of good will, it was not an argument, it was just you throwing insults at someone else. This is completely unacceptable behaviour. But, even still, we did not ban you immediately. Coalf and I gave you SEVERAL warnings. Now, I do not have Coalf's warnings on hand: but I have mine. Let me show you how many times I've told you to quit your attitude: And you did not stop. You continued, until I had to have Abo ban you from the discord. Which you then appealed some time after-- I asked you some questions to see if you had improved in that span of time. With your response to Abo and I you showed that you didn't change, and thus we extended your appeal period.

So, you've been very hostile in the discord the last few times you were there, which is why we banned you. Do you have anything to say about this? Do you think this behaviour was well warranted?

I'll be handling this instead of the banning admin. The appeal will be accepted, but you will receive a week ban instead of a permanent ban.

That's an admin. I'm aware, is nominating an admin not allowed? You cannot nominate staff members. They are not eligible for the position.

I'm fine with an unban, considering it's your only note. And yeah, we can't lift the IP ban. If one of you gets banned, it'll be an IP ban.

Application denied.

Application accepted.

After reviewing your behavior, the feedback we've received and our own experience with you, we've unfortunately decided to deny this application, as we feel you are currently unsuited for a head of staff whitelist. This denial is mainly due to your in-game behaviour, your stance towards the game itself and your low amount of server presence.

Application accepted.

We're going to be denying this application for now. We still think you need to improve on your roleplay, and there isn't much feedback here. I advise you play for more, get a better grasp on roleplaying and get more feedback. You're free to reapply in the future.

At this time, we're going to be denying your application. You should work more on the feedback presented and perhaps waiting a few months to reapply so that people are more familiar with your characters, since there isn't much feedback and what little of it we see is negative.

This was never my argument to begin with. I said I vote extended because I want there to be an antag, not because I expect there to be an antag. If there's no antag, I don't mind, I roleplay normally, it doesn't cripple my enjoyment of the game, I don't become paranoid, I don't literally spend every single second of my IC existence looking for antags, I just play the game normally, and I just find it annoying that I voted for secret and I get an extended round that I didn't want instead. I never said this, so I won't reply to this argument, maybe someone else who actually did say this can reply to it. Alright, my bad. Let me fix it. "From what I can tell, most people seem to vote secret because they want there to be an antag, or feel like playing a round with antags." It doesn't change anything. You'll notice that I said "it's just removing extended from the rotation" because of the passive aggressiveness from both sides, not because it's a good argument to remove extended.

>By voting secret you consent to every gamemode in secret. This doesn't mean I want extended in secret. It also doesn't mean extended should be a guaranteed chance either. >You don't vote for traitor, you don't vote for vampire and you don't vote for extended, you vote to be suprised, the thing about secret is that you are suprised by a gamemode, you consent to being suprised even if it is something you might not enjoy. So what? People vote extended because they want a random kind of antag, not because they want a random thrown in extended round that turns into a 2 hour CT call. Secret extended surprises nobody, it's just a complete annoyance thrown in to be ""surprising"" when it is about as surprising as finding cookies in a cookie box. >Look at this, there is an ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE FUCKING CHANCE that you will get ANYTHING else but extended. So there is a chance, and it means extended can be rolled. And people do not want extended rolled. Which is literally what this suggestion is. Despite extended having an "absolutely massive fucking chance to not be rolled", it apparently doesn't stop the 2+ secret extended round streaks. Which are arguably not fun. I don't get why this argument gets so much passive aggressiveness from either side. It's completely unneeded and it is quite literally just removing a gamemode from one rotation that can still be voted for - does that guarantee so much passive aggressiveness? It doesn't.

If people vote secret they will expect antags no matter what you tell them. They voted secret because they want antags, so they'll expect there to be antags. You can expect a round to have antags without metagaming too. They might WANT something. They shouldn't EXPECT anything. You should play like it is another normal day until antags get confirmed. Changing behavior depending on game mode is hallmark of meta-gaming; How can you expect antags without metagaming, if antags are not IC knowledge for anyone???? You voted secret because you want antags. You can play the entire round without metagaming but just wanting antags. Is it completely unfathomable that someone can want antags but also not metagame? No, it isn't. If I wanted to play a round with no antags I'd just vote extended, not secret. >Changing behavior depending on game mode is hallmark of meta-gaming; Please tell me where I said that you should change your behavior based on gamemode. I said nothing like that. What I did say is you vote secret for antags, not for extended.