Jump to content


Head Admins / Devs
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Skull132

  • Rank
    Head Developer
  • Birthday 14/12/1995

Personal Information

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Per Paradox's request, complaint will be marked as resolved. All of my remarks about the matter made over the course of this complaint are sustained. Hopefully the two can reasonably get along now.
  2. I can so debate this. The idea of a "People's militia" and weekend warriors is much more in line with organizations like the Estonian Defence League and perhaps the US National Guard. Legitimately, the only physical health check required for the EDL is a family phycisian's note and that's it. Regular trainings are held every quarter on the weekends, so that people with regular jobs can attend; exception being large field exercises with the Defence Forces proper, which can run for a few weeks. Even basic training is split up over weekends for about a month and then some. So by that criteria, the TCFL are much more akin to those two organizations, as opposed to the French Foreign Legion. The only real criteria for you to be a foreign legion I suppose is that you are made up of foreigners. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're a professional regular military unit.
  3. You've got the priorities mixed. The description is responsible for providing a good enough overview of the PR (both the technical aspects and the purpose) for the developers reviewing and maintainers merging to know what they're acting on. The title has no such responsibility and largely serves as a discriminator. Which is why the way we've conducted ourselves thus far is that offensive titles get changed by maintainers and lacking descriptions result in a PR being stone walled until updated or declined.
  4. Issues like privacy (example: if suspected of metagaming we will put other ckeys and or they connection information into a note, which leaves us having potentially exposed another person's connection info to the player), meaningless fights over wording (y u so mean, or, "change this word because it's not exactly what I did"), and generally people peering into a semi-work space. All notes that merit it are preceded by the staff member talking to the player. Ergo, the player is usually aware of the root cause. The note is for internal documentation. +1 dismissal and away we go.
  5. Instead of cherry picking, please read the paragraph in full. Or just the final line of the post, which is a summary in and of itself: "If it's an issue [you go talk to them]". As I mentioned, keeping a strictly professional attitude indoors is something you can do if you start legitimately paying staff. Why? Because it requires a decent amount of effort to detach yourself emotionally enough to pull it off. Which is why I do not mind if people nag on each other, as long as everyone involved is okay with it. Like, we have over 50 dudes in chat, all from different cultures and with different world views. There is a lot of grounds for friction and misunderstandings (a good example here is Paradox not being comfortable with Arrow's sense of humour, eg the "Opinions" joke), and we should acknowledge and work to solve this, instead of trying to assimilate everything into a white room with no distinguishing features. A decent example of this is PoZe and I. We both get passionate about code sometimes and some of our disagreements on how to do something can be very fun to watch, I am certain. But at the end of the day, I do not think less of him, I would hope he doesn't think less of me either; I review his code, help him out, merge his code, and life goes on. Psure we've even talked about it a few years ago. And again. No one is actually seething, outright undermining, sabotaging, etcetera. Not that I can see anyways. Arrow is trying to communicate, @ParadoxSpace needs to respond (to Arrow first and foremost). Arrow still merges Paradox's PRs, work gets done, and so forth.
  6. As I explained before to Paradox in private, you will likely not find anyone that matches the desired image of "innocent" within our community. All of us get irate, all of us take jabs at each other, all of us make failed jokes, etcetera. Even Chada will eventually drop down from his zen if you try hard enough to get him annoyed. Countering with, "Well, you said mean things too!" is a bit pointless to that end. Ultimately, we should act like adults and should be able to understand that the expectation to remain cordial 24/7 is reserved for an environment where you're actually paid a salary, and that things will get heated. Either dismiss some stuff in your head, or speak to the person (as Arrow is trying to do and Paradox is responding to, intermittently) about your issues and misgivings. Becrying staff toxicity is not really productive unless there's actual malicious intent or other tomfoolery at play. Eg. attacks that are uncalled for. (And no, referring to a clear mistake as a brain fart does not quality.) Oh and yeah. If you act dismissively towards someone, as Paradox has done in cases, then expect them to act dismissively towards you as well. If this is an issue, you go and talk to them. And expect both of you to have to make changes, not just a point of, "Hey can you cut it out while I continue? Kthx." ONCE that fails, you make a staff complaint.
  7. Hi, complaint's mine to oversee. First, to quickly cover some ground already covered elsewhere. The following assertion is not up for debate in this complaint. The testing of PRs is not the job of a Head Developer nor that of a maintainer. The job of a maintainer is to ensure in the stability and functionality of the codebase. Due to practical concerns (we merged over 70 PRs last month), we rely on the authors to test them and to present relevant information. If a bad PR gets merged, then the maintainers have two options really: to acquire a bugfix for the PR somehow, or to revert it. The latter was done in this instance. Further note, I'd prefer primarily to see dialogue on this matter between @ParadoxSpace and @Arrow768, since this is largely a matter of interpersonal communication. A large deal of evidence submitted to Alb, and by proxy to me, was just banter or a heated discussion. Banter and discussions where both sides can be perceived to be at fault: take the TCFL vs ERT debate. Arrow posted a sarcastic comment disvaluing player opinion, perhaps he should not have. Paradox, in the same discussion, should not have ridiculed the idea of trying to keep ERT relevant (because 'we need ERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!') and should not have personally attacked Arrow's activity (considering i play more). Note that we have about 500 regular players a month, if not more, so insistence that your opinion is somehow more important than the other 499 iiis. An old joke the Head Developers deal with quite regularly. Specially as of late. Ultimately, I would prefer that the staff team actually be able to communicate internally effectively, and either: simply roll with the shit, instead of assuming the worst or taking it to heart; do a double-take and communicate immediately about a matter being taken too far or off-topic. If taken far enough, point two will effectively mean the issuing of strikes and eventual dismissal (or GH bans if relevant), dependent on behaviour.
  8. As per the announcement on Discord yesterday, Jackboot has been dismissed from the position of Lore Master. He will remain as the Unathi Species Maintainer, as the matters pertaining to this decision do not immediately overlap with his abilities to write lore. The way forward with the lore team is to establish a new leadership, with the intent of resolving certain matters internally. For this purpose, @Mofo1995 will be promoted to the position of Interim Lore Master. Further more, a new Interim Deputy Lore Master will be recruited from among the current writers. In order to free up time and energy, effective this promotion, Mofo will no longer be involved with the CCIAA team, with the leadership of that being taken over by Lancer, and he will take a step back from the Tajaran Species Maintainer position as well (though the current arcs he started will be concluded). Some more information about recent events: No policy or specific decision established by Jackboot will be reverted. It will be up to the new Lore Team leadership to manage as they see fit. The Interim Lore Master and his Deputy will work together with the Lore Team and general server leadership to establish leadership within the Lore Team. If this is successful, then after a time, they will be promoted to Lore Master and Deputy proper.
  9. 🤔 Having a hard time imagining how the heck this would work. But eh, minor niggle. Also, I think you're trying to oversell the "Perfection" angle on some of this. Effectively employing the "X but Y!" trope, where Y completely contradicts X, that is common to fan fiction writers. A good example is the skin refinement area: IMO, it would be wise to play up the uncanny valley of this quite a bit. Saying that being perfect "looks natural" is a bit of a cop-out. It would actually be very nice if you could integrate an undertone of the crafts looking unnatural, specially if applied in large quantities and with great liberty, into the text. To hop off of this, what's also missing is absolutely any negative effect from this. In some of the more extreme cases, you're getting your entire body remade, to include bone and muscle structure. How on earth does this not have any negative side-effects, even if they're temporary or just lasting for the duration of the procedure. At the bare minimum, remove the specific examples. Or just completely remove it. I think the entire admin and moderator team will start to seethe at you if this section in specific gets implemented verbatim and we have to deal with players defending weird ass flavour text of elf ears and cat tails. Absolutely do not want. We do not have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in terms of body crafting, which would be making yourself look like a fantasy video game character.
  10. Alternatively. Play visitor. Some security players might enjoy dealing with this kinda stuff.
  11. The one proposed by @Conspiir is waaay too messy, visually. There's 4 elements for your eyes to focus on, and they're all in their a different visual style. Even the original is leaning towards that: the text and the NanoTrasen logo do not match at all. And the logo + text do not match the sprites. Another issue with the TC torch specifically is its likeness with the Bay12 Torch symbol. Which is why I would rather avoid it.
  12. Hence my usage of the phrase "de facto". The situation you propose is one where the limited few who actually bother reading the expansive wiki entry can play the game according to a rule set not referenced nor represented in game. And from there on, they can reasonably develop expectations that everyone read this and adhere to this. Despite this not being represented or even going against the mechanics in game. Ultimately, languages are a very overt mechanic of the game. They are very prominent and visible when used, and they are used with regularity. As such, it is not acceptable to completely desync them from the lore that they are meant to represent. This is not lore you can faun over and write for the sake of the legitimately compelled without any adverse effects.
  13. That's an unacceptable loss, specially for new additions. Lore going off to do "It's own thing" when compared to game play will only perpetuate the ever present schism between lore and game play. Which only leads to the lore devs, when they try to implement a follow-up into the game, getting major back lash because the actual players had no fucking idea that some article on some hidden wiki page explained a point that's now being turned into a huge deal (see: Akutha, Unathi arcs before that, probably a whole slew of shit I'm missing). What's worse, you're implementing de-facto policy with this. "Learn these if you want to roleplay knowing the language properly, and no, the mechanics that are meant to represent this are not sufficient."
  14. Well. Let's find out how long this lasts for.
  15. +1 dismissal. A change based on preference in a matter where there is no objectively better answer. Your inability to find the appeal of the backpack sprites does not mean that there is not one. It is not a valid argument in this case.
  • Create New...