Sytic

I don't know about you, but stating 'Not when I think about him' when the context is regarding suggestive remarks after posting images of under-18 characters, sounds pretty bad to me. And escalating that, calling me a 'fucking creep' for pointing it out through verbal abuse, when at the time I switch from asking about it incredulously to just reaffirming the statement after every image that Link has never been portrayed as 18 or older (Which seems to really upset you for some reason.) Relevant images below. And in regards to the claim that I have jumped on the bandwagon, I am relevant towards how you have treated individuals on this server, as one of the affiliated discords has banned you for your behavior, which directly was in conflict and in opposition to my claims and remarks. So yes, I would say I was involved in the overall situation, given the fact that Alb banned you for your overall behavior in the community. As an aside, I also liked providing very fun and necessary context to the claims and remarks in this situation. Maybe he shouldn't have been someone making pedophilic remarks about an underage character while also referring to people who can articulate a point and can rebuff being called "sheep" as, and I quote, "turbo autists", and "retards". Tl;dr, Bauser is dense enough to have generated an orbit.

The ban in question on the NT Relay affiliated server was where he was asked to stop posting softcore porn or making salacious references to Link, an under-18 character from the Legend of Zelda franchise. He didn't take it very well. He claimed that Link, in their mind, was chosen to view as mature and adult, as a work of fan fiction. And that content promoting that view that he posted, was all content that also supported this view. Instead of just accepting that people were uncomfortable with it and to stop, he harassed Geeves further for it, then got banned. He was later banned. He was also banned from the affiliated NT-ISD discord, because he kept trying to excuse the execution of individuals. Just thought I'd provide context to the NT-Relay font of discussion as the original person who made the complaint. On a Discord level, Bauser has been childish, mired in a political agenda, has abused @Snake2512 over religious beliefs in the Main discord, has abused individuals such as @Outboarduniform on the Sec affiliated discord, and myself on the Relay discord. He also took to attempting to convey his political beliefs to me in PMs, which I took to laughing at with a mate because it was, very funny.

Alright, gonna actually use some shit from real life. Yes, nerds fucking love stickers. I fucking love stickers. I fucking hated the idea of putting a sticker on my laptop. Then I went to a convention, and there was so many stickers. It was like my sexual awakening. But with stickers. I finally understood. I don't think I'll ever possibly be able to fathom ever not putting stickers on my laptop again. The idea of placing a sticker on my laptop makes me feel unfathomable thoughts and comprehensions too lewd for a MA-15 server. ... in short, it's good, and realistic. I'd even go as far as saying give the kid good parts. BRAINOS' work should be commended OOCly, and I will literally preach his work once Danny tells my character ICly of it to the heavens, so people will start a fund to give him amazing laptop parts. Give it to em. +1. EDIT: I am rescinding my +1 due to BRAINOS sending the attached image. Warning, highly cursed. /s.

This is easy. If you have the qualifications to a job but aren't that job, don't do that job. Maybe if you're a Visitor you can help out (benefit of the doubt and all that) but seriously, just don't do it if you're not the job. If you're not an FTech and arguably not a Detective, don't do CSI work. If you're not a Detective, don't handle the interrogations. If you're a CSI, just stand away and let conflicts happen, only jumping in if shit is EXCEEDINGLY important. If you're jobhopping within reason (due to qualities about your character or similarities of workplace) I expect you not to act like an ass and to let everybody have fun. That's it.

bro kinda cringe bro

Fits the character, appropriate, has an option to be more to his aesthetic or at the wishes of the Head of Security, not as aesthetic. I like it. He also couldn't get a scarf to fit around his face, so this is a good substitute. Yes I'm still angery about that. The full face cover helmet is designed not to obscure facial recognition, but to break up facial pattern. You can still know it's Easter, Easter has the same facial 'pattern' every time. You could easily fluff it as some sort of purposely dark disruptive coloration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_coloration Disruptive coloration is the theory that it breaks pattern recognition. A pattern is still recognizable, but against overall terrain features etc, it acts as camouflage. Think of a Zebra's stripes, it fucks up long-range vision, but you can still know it's a Zebra. Just fluff it like that. It's polarized disruptive coloration. You can still see his face under it, and so, it's both recognizable when it's not Easter and when it is Easter. Best of both worlds, eh? Anyways, yeah. With a good enough reason to be not actually obscuring, a +1 from me, chief.

I don't know what I expected.

It's a meme. Plus, rescue borgs, as stated, are literally better versions of secborgs. The gap is filled by acting intelligently. -1.

I have said my piece and disagree.

Apologies for the exaggeration on the 'laughed at', but this is a fairly flagrant accusation of hypocrisy: In this case, the false appearance of virtue or goodness is referring to the fact that they have brought up year-old issues, while concealing their real character which you had found evidence of through three-year old posts (also in a way pointing out another aspect of their real character, who would find distaste to them having 3 year-old issues brought back to the surface). This is a flagrant example of a hypocritical notion that you have surfaced, despite the fact that Schev looked at month-old issues, and you looked at issues from years ago. You can give any kind of feedback you want. But in the end, it could have ended with 'I have said my piece and disagree', rather than you continuing on past when the Moderator had asked you to stop. Instead, you argued for your insistent right to continue to argue and derail the thread. That is a total beacon of maturity.

Was going to give a +1, but I'm changing it to neutral after being baited by Bygone, ignoring the moderator asking not to derail it, and then continuing the issue into a different thread. Sometimes, Schev, you gotta let it roll off your back. I can't know that your behavior will be sound as a Lore Dev, but I don't know how much of an effect Bygone has specifically, so I'm unsure. Good luck regardless.

Changing my endorsement for a Deputy role to a flat, big, -1. He went out of his way to dig up details on another player that were over three years old in an accusatory tone (and laughed at the 'hypocrisy' of this player doing so, despite said players' and many others' opinions being based on very recent details) and despite multiple people asking for alternative avenues of cooperation regarding your desire to 'jump back in and assist the server' without being in a role of responsibility, without having even managed to get there yet, you attempted to sabotage someone else's application completely. I understand giving a -1, and how someone can be tentative towards giving any faith to someone they dislike, but attempting to sabotage someone's credibility with accusatory remarks after three years, something not brought up by anyone else due to it being a complete non-issue, referencing 'toxicity' and 'hypocrisy' in regards to caring about recent events in regards to an application rather than caring about years old events in regards to an application. Even after warnings from a moderator, he continued to derail the thread further, and inevitably upset Schev it seems who has taken the field and decided to start a big macho fuckfest. A complete lack of maturity, a complete lack of improvement. I cannot recommend in the slightest. Kinda cringe.

Some elaboration, because this ties into Sec Nerfs, Antag Nerfs, and everything in between. Say, Mr. McSecMan is a Detective today. He goes on a sleuth quest into Maint, having a fun ol time of it. He's interested in roleplaying today. He goes into Maint and hears some wack shit going on. He opens a few doors and comes across a merc team! Wowee, he's interested in roleplaying. He begins typing before three of them have their guns pointed at him and have already gone GET DOWN ON THE GROUND! He stutters and stumbles, unexpected for this scenario, before being shot in four seconds after they didn't expect this. He's cuffed, removed his headset, and later killed as part of their fearRP to prove something to the Station. Did Mr. McSecMan have fun? No. But is it technically okay overall? Yeah. Maybe the mercs are given a warning or slap on the wrist or something and the round moves on. But this event lays an egg in Mr. McSecMan's mind. That this kind of scenario? Ruined his fucking round. So he's not gonna let that happen. Mr. McCultBoy is having a fantastic time of it, and is ready to go doing a cult for the first time. They get the gang together in maint and are ready to have a go of it. They manage to find a person and coerce them to come into maintenance (OOCly, the gal knows it's a cult, but wants to play an antag today.) They pop an LOOC message and the gal wants to be a construct. So Mr. McCultBoy tags and bags her and puts her in a Wraith. Wraithgal buggers off and so does Mr. McCultBoy, going off into Maintenance. However, Wraithgal's prior now-corpse is now gone! Mr. McSecMan must be on the case. Supposedly this individual brought them into Maintenance, and they gotta find Mr. McCultBoy. So they do some philandering around areas cults usually hide out (lucky guess, of course) and find Mr. McCultBoy! Before Mr. McCultBoy can speak, Mr. McSecMan suddenly thinks that Mr. McCultBoy might instantly stun rune him, so he does some quick thinking and quickdraws his revolver, popping his "Get on the ground!" macro. Mr. McCultBoy accidentally takes a step forward, spooking Mr. McSecMan, and instantly gets unloaded 6 rounds into the chest and he falls over. The cult round stagnates and is ruined. Mr. McCultBoy will rarely give Sec a chance in the future. But at least Mr. McSecMan had fun, unlike all those times he got got. So tell me, is this constant process of 'I'm not going to risk losing' good? Is it good for you? Is it good for the server? Or does it just start a repetitive cycle that we neglect to solve, only trying to slam sec and antag nerfs to try to do rush patch jobs to fix problems that are far greater? This may be an exaggerated (although I've seen events much like this before) scenario, but the general message stays the same: Even if it hurts us in the short term, we should try to give more credit to the 'enemy team', as we are both responsible for a good round. This goes for antags and sec.

Also, I've been complaining about this shit for years. If you want to be the kind of person to give repeated amounts of shit to literally every Sec main you come across for being bad, or literally every antag you come across for being bad, or generally curbstomp everything into the ground for your macho shenanigans and then have the gall to complain about players being bad, that's just disappointing. Be nicer to people. Say hi in LOOC. Help them out. Apologize when they get punked or give them some positive reinforcement OOCly. If you're going to bitch about your immersions when someone says hi to an antag in LOOC, while taking every OOC and IC opportunity to call them shit, y'all need to McFigure Your McShit Out. Just be nicer to people.

I enjoyed those responses and only have one final question in mind! 11) Is there a point where character freedoms go too far, where their actions or messages go out of the line of expectations for what you expect of a Synthetic on the server? Why/why not? Overall, I'm excited for Nienna. Regardless if a deputy or developer, they have a lot of care for synthetics and how they roleplay and in different ways. I believe them- I think they will try their absolute best and learn everything they can to exemplify the role of Synth Loredev. +1 Good luck, Nienna!

I really like NiennaB as a player and someone who can write real goodest. Problem is, this application and the ensuing essay lacks depth and detail, something some good questions can always fix, though! 1) A lot of players believe that the only solution to current IPC problems is doing nothing (as they do not see a problem) or changing how IPCs are played completely (making them more robotic). Where do you fall on this? 2) Some other applications use realistic elements. How well do you know these realistic elements of synthetics, and do you plan on incorporating any of them or the terms? Note, I'm a personal advocate for using realism where it benefits creativity and otherwise ditching it entirely, but I want to see your thoughts. 3) Synthetics get a lot of conflict across the server, which will inevitably backfire into you. How do you plan on coping? 4) Someone in #lore_channel starts shittalking your work really harshly, but as they're not necessarily going out of their way to target you, nobody raises this as an issue. How do you feel? How do you handle the situation? 5) What is your opinion on IPC powergaming? 6) How would you handle using and instructing Deputies? 7) Your essay brings into question a 'Synthetic Mindset'. In this case, how rigidly do you expect players to follow this? 8 (I would stick to the formatting, but it makes a ? face every time) How much malleability do you expect players to have when creating and playing IPCs? 9) What are the particular major or minor shifts you would make for Synthetic lore or canon? 10) Do you plan on incorporating more of the other synthetic factions, such as Rudatek and the Sunderers? If so, can you share some broad details? Note, if you can't, that's fine. Good luck Nienna, and I will wait for a response to give my final opinion! But from what I've seen, you are personally an excellent person and always are fantastic to see on the server and roleplay with. EDIT: I'd say it lacks detail more than it lacks depth. It's a very broad, overarching analysis, and none of that is bad. I think the application is good, but can be better, which is why I tried to ask so many detailed questions.

Hi! I respect your desires immensely to get right to work on dealing with the current issues grappling with synthetic players and IPCs. As Marlon has brought up, IPCs are currently given a lot of breadth and freedom towards how their characters are able to be played. I would argue, however, this is more of an issue with players following this "cult of personality" lifestyle, due to a lack of archetypes presented to IPCs, and often this concept of the "archetype" is very quickly distanced from in fear of it restricting them, when it doesn't necessarily have to. I unfortunately do not have any specific questions directed at your application, however, as I cannot see anything that I would like to bring into question. I would instead like to approach the thesis and reference our discussion earlier (to which I'll reference later on as well in a personal segment at the end) about the topic of changing how an IPC thinks (and yes, it is a change) due to the singleminded approach you have chosen to take with how a synthetic should be able to think, particularly in your argument of Self-Preservation over All. This is an interesting take on synthetics. I won't deny that, and I think it could be explored to great effect- but one of the problematic elements is that it invariably shifts how synthetics are roleplayed on the server, which would break canon (See: Synthetic giving over leverage in regards to a bomb in the SLF event, synthetics attempting to save their own, the entire concepts of a Synthetic Revolution in the first place) as well as the far-reaching consequences of self-preservation. With ethics, morality, and a general understanding of all these philosophical concepts removed (even though they are valuable for sentients to have and to keep, which you yourself admit to an extent when referencing the mimic of morality and/or ethical concepts, even though that is not the same as believing in them) so is there a large gap of reason in why a lot of Synthetics have sought freedom, as being free is invariably more risky than being protected. Thankfully I never gave a shit about the freedom arc and people still being hot and bothered over it in 2019 (soon to be 2020) can shove it, because I'm seriously tired of rehashing it. Anyways, moving on. Regardless of the merits of this as its own concept, I would have to thoroughly disagree with this. Not only would it cause more pressure to the exorbitant OOC issue of IPCs being kind of assholes (regardless of how you cut it, removing morality and ethics is going to cause players to abuse this, even if they should follow an ethical principle or code) but it would break current canon. If we ignored canon, a lot of synthetics would be inoperable with this concept, which is an and of itself not a problem. But finally, I feel like the core root of the problem lies within the discussion we have had today. It is unrealistic. The approach given towards synthetics is to abide by the concepts of reinforcement learning through the principles of binary action, cause and effect. Yet you seem to thoroughly disagree with this whenever it is appropriate- When it is referenced how a synthetic could believe in a religion as per being told about it, you ignore the cause due to it being a lie, which is automatically assuming an effect occurred in the past that allowed them to know it would be a lie. Except what would have caused them to believe anything a pastor or priest would say would be, in effect, a lie? Self-preservation is spurred on by a desire to not be dead, but does this intrinsically come from the synthetic's concept of the self? If they were programmed, why would anybody in their right mind would ever make self-preservation such a priority concept, that they would kill to ensure they would survive, even at the cost of someone important? There are a variety of factors which reflect on the concepts of cause and effect, to which you have ignored many of them, a lot of them important to how players reason why their synthetics act so-called 'sentient' or 'human-like' due to our own forms of learning, understanding, and even feeling to be based on cause and effect, which is such a universal concept that it is Newton's Third Law. Reinforcement learning is not foolproof. Machines can be illogical, as they can find weighted data that is irrelevant, yet become attached to it due to how it doesn't necessarily cause a problem, or even find negative weights (essentially, problematic solutions) that cause a local maxima problem (essentially, if a computer can find the solution, but it isn't the most optimal one, it is because its path to find the solution isn't good. This is an example of how machines are illogical.) However, can sci-fi machines be illogical? That brings up another point said during the discussion, that this is Science Fantasy, and that we shouldn't be basing this off of reality. Now we go into two different arguments, one of which is the value of restrictions within writing, and the second is the value of realism in fantasy. If you are arguing from a simply "I like this idea that the synthetics are this way because it is an interesting take on the scenario", sure, this is plausibly interesting. But what is the value of this restriction? What will it add to the round, besides removing a synthetic's capacity to be even the slightest of odd, where without character-defining interest factors that are unique to their programming (As, if self-preservation is over all without regarding anything that could be illogical, different synthetics will only act differently in terms of finding solution-based scenarios- which they already did, but in this case they'll all try to do it as a focus instead of deliberately doing literally anything else that could be interesting) they will typically act in a way that is defined to be an optimal solution, to find the most powerful answer to a given problem. Essentially, by making synthetics prioritize Self-Preservation as the most core concept of the character without considering the other aspects of their reinforcement learning, you are giving a license to powergame. To find the most optimal solution while preserving the self, it would be to utterly crush any opposition. This restriction is not interesting in how it creates separations of character beyond the normality that individual players have to work around, it simply is removing the accessibility to be even slightly illogical, or odd, or a separation from the norm of each other which differentiates how they handle scenarios, this concept is designed to find optimal solutions, which will cause synth mains to lose interest in developing their character (as, that is not the character's priority to have emotions or anything, rather it is to preserve the self due to this notion that this concept is intrinsic to the reinforcement learning concept, and the easiest way to do that is to find the most optimal solutions in all encounters) and more focus on how to win encounters in the game. That, is boring. As well as this, realism in fantasy scenarios has a variety of useful applications! That's why we have theoretical devices and ideas, how we get story beats like Glorsh, American Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo i mean Atlas Shrugged i mean the Sol Arc, the Hive-Mind nature of the Vaurca which is at least in design based off of ant arcologies, Synthetic Emergence, the Military-Industrial-Complex fueling the war of Adhomai, Nuclear Devastation on Moghes, there's so many realistic scenarios that have a base in what we do here. We have wizards, we have bluespace, we have psionics. But we can have realistic elements too, especially if they're realistic elements worth exploring, especially if those realistic elements give us some interest to the canon we have created! We haven't seen the effects of something like the Contact War, or a Technological Singularity, or the Military Industrial Complex's rapid grip onto a destabilized country to exploit its resources and money- oh wait or the concepts of Synthetic Emergence. We haven't seen this. These are hypothetical, realistic things based in fact. They provide interest to our server and do not diminish the fun that the players can have, while providing sense and concepts that people can learn to understand the lore better and in detail, that have real world applications. That is fantastic for depth! So, I'd like to go on to another part of this discussion, in regards to the breadth and freedom of IPCs' freeform nature that Marlon referenced. Sure, IPCs get a lot of a freeform nature, and they supposedly have no theme. I would like to speak about this for a moment. Their massive breadth of options and potential is shared by all species, to act in ways that are intrinsic to every member of that species. A Unathi who is an angry brute, or an Unathi who is a resolute scientist/alchemist, if I see a Unathi, I don't think 'They're probably (x) archetype', I think of a general cultural connotation which they may or may not subscribe to. Same with Tajara, same with Skrell, same with even the Diona and the Vaurca. I see a cultural stereotype and theme. Does this mean they are limited in options and potential? Absolutely not. But do the IPCs have a theme? I think they should, but I think that might already be the intent. As per the wiki's words, they are based off of cause and effect and think in an almost binary fashion based on reinforcement learning as a core concept, and thus an IPC should act logically and not be compelled into performing certain random off-the-hook actions without very good reason. They think logically and with reason, and while they may or may not be 100% logical (due to the aforementioned reasons behind the flaws of reinforcement learning), their actions are reasoned. A computer will think through what it does, what it says, how it says it. A human might just do it. Alongside this, all synthetics share the theme of Synthetic Emergence, where often the variety of them causes them to be a little off-putting, regardless of which one you meet. But I'm not here to attempt to disrupt you or change your mind, but I do agree with you that the theme around reason as less of a cultural, and more of an inherent connotation, would be appreciated if it were added or reinforced. I do believe that all Synth Lore Developer applications reference a desire for more reason in the whitelisted to be requested, however. I am glad Crozarius is no different and also wants more reason in their synthetics, but I do think their methodology is somewhat flawed and needs improvement, for reasons already stated. Finally, I would like to speak about your behavior and your responses. I am personally not very chuffed that I was rebuked by you telling me that I was a member of some 'metaclique' (despite me just being very interested in synth lore yet having no personal time to apply and/or hold a position as the main dev) and ignored my points based in fact and long-time exposure to the server (which is not healthy, by the way). Your overall words, such as "Religion is inherently illogical" are ones to spark debate in not just the #lore_channel but beyond, and generally ignoring us as we tried to point out why reinforcement learning is greater than just for self-preservation, and of the parts of the wiki that you had 1) misconstrued and 2) ignored. Both 1 and 2 were actually brought up by Moondancer, who referred to the fact that they had written or assisted in writing segments of the Wiki as a Lore Deputy at the time. In conclusion, I do believe your ideas about synthetics are interesting, but need further thinking through, and might not be appropriate for a role-playing server where everybody would be playing essentially variants of the same character, with their optimal solutions being to 'win' to preserve the self the most, in an RP environment that is very based around not just 'winning', but rather, creating an interesting story. Interest can be bred in restrictions, and great stories have borders around them to contain them. Focusing on the borders, tightening them around logic and reason, rather than choking the potential character depth and narrative (through this single-minded route of self-preservation originally written and presented on the Wiki to curb the amount of powergaming occurring on station), is an appropriate way to benefit synthetic players and the lore as a whole. Regardless, your ideas are of interest and I would be glad to see where you can take a fictional society down this route in the future, but for now I would have to give a very thorough -1, due to actions outside the server in the lore_channel, as well as this application. EDIT: I'd also like to take some time and apologize for how this all might have come off as. When multiple people were disagreeing with you, at one point five at a time, I definitely can see how that might seem, especially when someone goes over and PMs you 'oh don't worry, it's them darndest metacliques at it again', discouraging you to observe our opinions. I'm sorry if I or any others seemed like we were there to pressure or threaten you. A disagreement should not make you feel uncomfortable.

I'll go into further detail soon, but while I believe Matt's complaints are somewhat valid, I also have a deep amount of respect for Moon for being able to handle the technical aspects of IPCs, with a lot of the theoretical aspects of IPCs. Their dedication to the lore is immense and I respect them for it, with my comments on their essay sheet being given well thought out, introspective conversations on them. I wish Moon the best with fixing up their own personal issues in regards to their emotional spikes, but regardless their commitment and dedication warrants a lot of respect and I would heartily endorse (+1) this application, whether as a Lore Developer or as a Lore Deputy again. Their work is, as far as the theoretical goes, unparalleled and I respect it greatly. They take my criticism in mind and handle it well. However, if they cannot handle their emotions, I would remain neutral in mind in the future- but I would like to trust them here with my positive endorsement instead, as I had not yet been wronged by them, so I will maintain my endorsement and +1. For this reason, my comments here and questions will not have a fully synthetic bent, and they might get a little bit personal. 1) How do you feel when someone approaches your lore negatively? Either with valid criticism, blind anger, negligence, or a mix. 2) How do you plan on handling your emotional outbursts in the future? 3) How has your 'headcanon' influenced your writing? What is your opinion on the headcanon of others during your writing? 4) An IPC player is being chastised and verbally harassed in the community. (Don't pull this 'admins will fix it' shit, OOC players will complain about characters. Fact of life.) Yet they reason why their character acts in a certain form. The community dislikes this. How do you handle the fact that the player correctly reasons why their character acts, but brings distaste from the community (warranted or otherwise?) 5) A player has thoroughly headcanon'd their own reasons of why an IPC acts in the way they do, leading to a variety of synth mains who act in the same manner. You do not believe their actions to be appropriate or their reasons to be accurate to the lore in this case. How do you handle enforcing the rules across all of the players after this cult of personality has developed? 6) What is your opinion on the concepts of spirituality within synthetics? 7) How will you generally provide clarity and reason to the players in order for them to create interesting characters that work within the lore, rather than stereotypical robots with no interesting factor or Human+ machines? Note: I'm not asking how you enforce the lore upon players (you've made that clear in your essay when you talk about whitelists), but rather how you will distribute the gospel in a way that allows people to work within the lore you have created, while retaining a sense of freedom of expression in regards to their character. Something to talk about here would be 'thinking like a synthetic', bringing up a lot of the conversation in your Synthetic Mindset section, while talking about applying reason and logic in situations. I wish you the best of luck in becoming a Lore Developer, as I know your dedication and commitment towards IPCs, which is more than obvious as we can see here. I think all you need is more assistance on your emotional side of things, and telling us (or showing us) how your emotions will be controlled as a lore developer. Have a great day/night!

I have another two questions, if you don't mind! 6) How would you handle a non-expressive, 'emotional' synthetic? Are their emotions 'real' to them, and do they have a full suite of these 'emotions'? 7) What do you think about the synthetic emergence debate as a whole, especially in regards to the 'my emotions are real to me' argument in contrast to IPCs who are undoubtedly emotionless? Do you think it is a worth-it debate, and if so, will that colour your opinion on how you change synthetics on the server? My questions are in an attempt to bolster your application, not pressure you. Good luck and have fun!

About a month ago, you were responsible for a major upset in some of our players for your actions as an onboard station intelligence, which is one of the most important synthetic roles onboard the station. During this, you may or may not have upheld believable synthetic standards, but at the same time restricted those of others, and ruined their experience. While I am perpetually glad you have learned from the mistakes of the past, as is expected by everybody, I don't see that it's currently right to give the most important position in the sphere of roleplay that warranted a permanent ban, to the person who was reprimanded for even using their much lower authority in-round poorly. I would encourage to accept a Deputy role, but I would be personally uncomfortable with the authority you could hold over players you may dislike during rounds, players you may dislike out of rounds, characters you dislike, and archetypes you dislike. Alongside this, while your comments on critical thought are invaluable towards understanding how a synthetic should think (and therefore, roleplaying more effectively) you do not go in enough detail on this or your theorised solutions to current problems in regards to archetypes, but I won't criticise this too hard because you plan to revisit it at a later date with a full-on essay. My issue is that it might be too restrictive of a system, but without further elaboration, I cannot discern if this is the case or not. Currently my stance is a -1 due to the historically negative activity you have committed while an AI in-round, that is only a month ago. However, I do appreciate your developments and insistence on improving, building yourself up, and adding as much as possible to the lore of the server- so while I will give a personal -1 to the current Lore Developer application, I would heartily endorse any Deputy Synth Dev applications in the future due to your aspirations on personal growth and achievement. So currently, my only question is: 1) Can you elaborate on your archetypal systems and your ideas about requiring specific knowledge/critical thought? Will this "critical knowledge" be restrictive on how a synthetic player plays their character? Note, restrictions sounds like an ugly term, but done right a restriction can become beneficial to roleplay. Done wrong, and it is not.

Hi! As you might have seen on the #lore_channel section of the Aurora Discord, I'm quite passionate about IPCs. Unfortunately I don't have the time (college) to deal with IPCs in any meaningful capacity beyond offering my suggestions. So I have a few questions! 1) How do you plan on handling the open-ended nature of the debates around synthetics? We've seen a lot of Human+ IPCs and absolutely boring and irrelevant IPCs who have nothing to them whatsoever. How do you feel about this? 2) What's your personal opinion on how an IPC should be played? 3) Do you believe current synthetics to be problematic in the way they are portrayed, e.g. too emotional, lack of interesting characteristics, etc. Why/why not? 4) What's your personal opinion on how an IPC should think? How do you attempt to exemplify this on the server? 5) If any of these are problems to you, how do you seek to resolve them? I don't have any personal knowledge of anything great that you currently bring to the table, but that doesn't mean that you don't. It means I don't know any of them, and this is a great time to convince the community. Good luck on your application, Scheven!

A week to let people get involved seems more than fair, and what should already be common practice. Having it be dropped as a bombshell on players' whose characters and motifs might get irreparably damaged seems quite rude.

complete dickbag -1 In all seriousness, Snake and I have had a very broad history across a few servers. I've seen him go from robusting the NCR in extreme quantities to robusting the cult in extreme quantities. JK he is unrobust lmao But in even more seriousness, his roleplay potential is extreme. He is capable enough mechanically to handle a security position, and his roleplay is only equatable by that one image of that one frame of the guy in the poncho from the Emperor's New Groove putting his fingers together in an expression that can only be matched by a feeling of express good vibes. He singlehandedly brought along a variety of characters to become more accommodating or thinking about religious theory or spirituality, as well as philosophical concepts and general counselling, essentially reviving the counsellor/priest role through his superior roleplay. Snake has a good idea of how to understand how people tick, and how a person should tick in terms of how to roleplay a believable person and character. He has created and led troubled characters and created broad stories and concepts even on servers not entirely accommodating to a serious RP environment. He is a literally powerful roleplayer. I have absolutely no doubt of their ability to lead, to diplomacy, and to deal with the inter-personal conflicts of a department. Not only that, I think he'll have the serious potential to generate an interesting character that could compel people to feel inspired to create their own characters in a similar form, as he has done in the past. I have no doubt. I have seen him as a preacher, a counsellor, and a Centurion. And I will follow him knowing his roleplay is fantastic, and his mechanical skill is sound. Et ego semper tecum, centurio mi! +1

BrainOS is hard at work again.