Skull132

Pretty much what Zip had pointed out. In my mind, keeping the no vote on code red rule is a small evil compared to folks calling a shuttle via vote the moment something goes explodey. Because it has happened, and will continue to happen. The amount of times a shuttle vote has passed during an active and developing situation on blue alert, I would wager, is proof of that. With that perspective, is one drawn out round on code red that big a fault? Also, admins do keep track of the antag situation, specially on code red. Meaning that, if we believe that an antag's steam has run out, but red isn't lifted after a certain amount of time, we may choose to poke the issue.

Application denied, following trial extension due to real life circumstance, as of 09MAR2015. If you wish to know the reasons behind this decision, please feel free to contact myself over the forums, BYOND or ingame.

There really isn't a point in going about this any other way, besides just integrating it with the suit cycling unit. Either shoot me a pull request for the sprites into my master branch, or if you're unsure as to where exactly they're meant to go (either be sure, or just do this), then just send them to me via PM and link.

You misunderstand the point behind my guidelines. I made a point of writing them to be as aggressive and firm as possible. Obviously there are situations which require you to go off the reservation. There will be a situations where you are forced to say, "Skull, fuck yo words. Imma go against them fully." And that's fine. But these guidelines aren't made to account for them. If you write down that liberty for a new leader, for whom these were originally meant, then they will find themselves lacking a baseline to operate off of. These guidelines are meant to establish that baseline. So yes, you will have situations where you, as a Chief Engineer, need to step into an unmanaged sec team and yell at that. But. I pray to god you understand that you are stepping onto territory where you lack knowledge. So arm yourself with humility, until the situation gets too far. At that point, aggression and authority -- clarity. I'd also recommend working with them for as long as you can; from what I can determine, you have a bit of a negative onset towards sec, and if you enter their world as a Chief Engineer demanding butts to be had without, what they consider to be valid reason, you'll get chewed out and spat out. Which isn't the best scenario for either case. Eh. Eh. Eh. I'm not too fussed about this. A lot of the senior departmental teams, most evident in Medical, Security and Science, are quite capable of self-control and communication. At which point, all you need do is to enable them to communicate with you. Once that's done, they should run like a well oiled machine. If you spot conflict, then work with the command staff and the department in question to solve it. The worst, absolute worst thing you could do is roll in as a foreign entity and slap in place a leader. He won't be respected. He won't listened to. Nor will you, at that point. So work with the folks you're trying to manage, and it should work out. Everything else is dependent on the case itself. Horribly nuance driven point here. Okay, yes, that charge is bullshit. But it helps prove a point and showcase a pothole you're about to step into. What happens to an officer who lashes out with a charge of "Disrespecting an Officer"? They get called petty, they ruin their image, they get put under direct scrutiny. Consider that you are working with humans. Consider that you are Chief Engineer who has marched into security, and presumably demanded action. How you explain yourself and conduct yourself past that point determines the amount of respect you walk away with from that engagement. I will not fault an officer getting fired up if you're stepping on their tail during a live situation, and asking them to do something they would never consider proper, without taking the time to make them understand you. Because: they are under stress, they are following their teachings, and now they have this other dude appear out of the blue, telling them the direct opposite of what they're trained to do. If you lash out against that, you make a grave mistake. For the above situation, your actions should be preventative. You should seek to establish good communication, authority and a working relationship with Security, so that they are capable of heeding your word, should a situation go live. However. If the disrespect is genuine, then it deserves to be looked at. I have always hated, hated, hated the "Disrespecting an Officer" clause. And while I understand that there are situations where you need to remove an element, so that the whole can function again, it needs to be handled with knowledge and wisdom. You have tools, and you should not default to the quickest solution, as it is most often the one that requires the most clean-up afterwards. Now, let me address a point that may arise real quick. I understand that what I said up top may come off as rather opposed to your views. From what I've determined, you've spent your fair time as a Chief Engineer and a leader, at that point. Which is why I am not exactly afraid to argue points raised, with the intent of offering perspective on the issues you raise. Keep in mind, there is no one solution to any issue, there shouldn't be. So above, I described my preferred toolset, one which has served me well enough on SS13. Further more, I advise gaining perspective of your own initiative as well. Play Sec for a few rounds, and understand the mindset of the core players there. See what approaches would work best with'em, and adjust your strategy to be more effective. Oh, and the full thread I was referencing for the list. Should cover a few other things: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=603

That's a valid fear to have. And if you don't want to test the calmer waters because of that, then that's completely fair and fine. Encouraged, actually, as that approach is comfortable to you now. As a means to broaden perspective, though, you can get closer to your team without becoming unnecessarily biased. My personal means of accomplishing it is keeping track of when I speak in a biased manner, and when I don't. You'll see me add, "But I'm biased [on this topic]," at the end of certain paragraphs, or flat out declaring that that which follows is either personal or biased opinion. Tangents about leadership aside. If corporate regs are bothering you and other security players, then see what you can come up with. However, I'd like you to outline a goal for such an endevour before going at it.

What bothers me is my ability to pick you out. That's generally not a negative thing, but given that your main pitch is, "I've changed," it leaves a few fun questions. Another thing which leaves me hesitant is your constant multikeying. Harmful or otherwise, you've played on our server with roughly 5 - 10 keys. And a good few of them have had notes added. The issue comes from us not being able to track these notes as you do so, to the point where I took a day to rummage through 5 months worth of logs to compile a word doc on your notes. If you keep doing that, then we'll have an issue with you effectively dodging long term punishment.

Corporate regulations being broken and/or stupid Nope. See, "Idea Officer". An Ideal Officer Fluid in his execution under any situation. Able to maneuver around any verbal engagement without, at the very least, agitating the other side further. Able to respond to any physical situation with a proper application of force. Has an answer, or knows who to refer to. Respectful towards any individual. Including his opponents. While on duty, does not drink, slander, insult. Treats every individual, even if they are providing verbal resistance, with respect on par with a normal member of the crew. Restrained in his escalation of force, up until a certain point. There is no need to escalate a verbal situation, try to calm the subject instead, and make them understand. Reasonable in any situation. Dude, you're a human, dealing with humans. Do you really need to arrest that guy for hopping the counter for the first time? Report it, warn him, politely, and move on. Take pride in your work as a means to warn people and steer them away from stupid shit, instead of simply arresting them. Humble in his conduct. He understands that, despite his job being challenging, and despite others potentially not seeing it, he is doing this of his own free will and choice. He is able to find his own mistakes, and admit them, while taking responsibility for them. Even if said mistakes must be admitted infront of an angry/disliked individual. [*]Giving out pardons I don't really know. Honestly, just be reasonable in who you arrest, and what for. Ideally, you wouldn't arrive at a situation where a pardon is required. Beyond that, if the arrest was shitty/under dubious circumstance, and isn't going to break anyone's back, does it really matter? As long as there is no larger issue at play, I'd leave it up to Captain's discretion. [*]Proper escalation of force With words - do not escalate to force. Make sure your intent is clear, and that the subject understands. Ask for compliance, explain the circumstances and reasoning. Ask for a second time. Inform them that you will be arresting them. Execute with minimal force required (flash; baton if they have shades). At threat of violence - ensure in the safety of yourself first and foremost, ensure in the safety of the personnel around you, ensure in the safety of the criminal last. Before someone starts twisting my words. This does not mean you get to shoot them, because their safety is a non-issue. Most of the time, security confrontations that escalate take place with minimal bystanders and with the target armed with a melee weapon, at a disadvantage. At that point, maintain distance, ask for compliance while showcasing your capacity to exercise force (taser/baton out). Should they not heed the warning, or break the stand-off, neutralize them. Always strive to ensure that you are in control of the situation. [*]Captain butting into Security and/or other Heads butting into other departments No. One of the worst sins you could conduct. You lack knowledge, you lack the expertise of the head you are trying to emulate. Even the Captain. Furthermore, you show disrespect to the head in question, and you make it clear to the subordinates that undermining authority is fine (by the virtue of setting an example). Yes. There will be situations that demand it. But those are not to be expected. So unless there is a critical, "THERE'S A LIVE BOMB IN THERE, DO NOT ENTER!" type situation, prefer to relay. Let me quote myself on sticking to your lane from an old thread about leadership: [*]Elena not having friends Okay. There's being high and mighty all the time. There's putting a stone wall between you and your team. But there's also a part for the soft and trooper-oriented leader. Not for all, mind you, and carries risks of you losing your authority. I'd suggest keeping your authority, because you have a lot of it, and putting it under the least threat. If it means running with a small count of friends, then so be it. If you can emulate that style of leadership by cutting yourself a few notches lower without losing your authority, then try it. But be careful.

This is something that I've been pondering on. For the longest of times. And it runs into the general topic of the metagame. No, not the skype-buddy negative kind of metagame. More of the, persistent RPG, stats-savey kind. The question I've been bouncing around in my head, personally, is: "How much persistence can we introduce, to enable character development and footprint, without crushing certain elements required for actual, meaningful conflict to take place?" It's a balancing act, ultimately, and I'm inclined to leave it in control of the player/master, with oversight from the Administration & Moderation Staff. As it has been. Persistent security records would basically end with all antagonists and antagonistic characters (ones being by gamemode, the others by pure nature) rooted out and removed. Ergo, it would tip the balance towards having everything orderly and fine, albeit with a bit of an iron fist. What would this lead to? Nothingness, really. It would leave us with no Stamos to quarrel at, no overly-aggressive doctors or Tajarans to talk smack about, no Erec Bellard doing stupid shit, yelling at command staff for trying to stop him, and still continuing. It'd just be, "Sit, wait for antags to appear, move on," instead of, "Manage the folks on station, and watch as the antags come in, throwing a few wrenches into the already fragile cogs." Now, there is one way to enable what is described above, but whooo boy, it's a large one. You need to create and integrate an opposing side. There need to be ways to bypass these checks, without using a new character. Something like an organized group of antagonist players. Except, this will run into opposition as well. Tishina already scoffed at the stories of Adrianna and Crimson that I told him earlier today (active antag characters played on station, with storyline and canon in mind). So, it ain't an easy idea to pitch, specially not with me running on minimal time for implementing new shenanigans. But. There is always a but, and always alternatives. And as I said in the beginning, this is something I've thought about for a long time. I've been wanting to give players better control over character records. Perhaps integrate the indepth ones that I've designed into the game, and be accessible for review/editing (by the creator) on a website (uplink style). Basically, bring that bit of the game out of the game, so that it may be referenced wherever they wish. An idea would be that you go to the website, type a name into a search field, and bam. You have rather detailed records to read through. Obviously, IC access level would determine how much you see, but still. And then do something similar for the syndicate. Not records, as much as a fluid contract database and market. "I want this and this piece, bring it." "Alrighty, I'll log onto the game, see if I can roll/request traitor, and get'er done!" Stuff like that. Make the metagame make the round-by-round game more connected in a manner that is actually encouraging for both sides. Those are my thoughts, all ideas described are rather horribly far off from being completed, but yes.

As a KISS style solution, I've added a locker with surgical equipment. Ain't the prettiest thing, and I'll be tracking down a few old threads to solve the issue in a more pleasing manner down the line.

Since new surgery. And I'm aware of this, will be upgrading the present map to have the tools necessary this weekend. So yay.

Any help is welcome, but the main need that exists is for coders. The main languages in question are DM (BYOND's own mashup, for which exist tasks of varying difficulty), HTML/CCS and PHP (familiarity with the Bootstrap framework would also help). Basically, if you're a coder that applies, and have some competence with any of the languages noted, we'll have tasks for you. Spriters are needed on a very irregular basis: sometimes we have a lot of work for them, sometimes none at all. So yeah. Mappers we're mostly filled up on. So yeh. The Developer applications are always open, and I am willing to teach and guide, provided timezones and a few other things match.

Also, as silly as it may seem. I have a solution. I'm sure there are more, so please, present them. More than likely, I'll just start managing rounds where we lock down and focus on project development, and then swing around to general operating mode again. However, note that with suggestions, I don't expect their fill-rate to increase in the near future. Which is both good and bad, double edged sword, this.

So, this is something I was thinking about. You know how it'd be nice to have the following: All this, with a team numbering 4: Now, before someone throws a wrench into my plans. I ain't here to talk about how our job is hard, how we've got a lot of it. I ain't here to cry over the workload which I voluntarily, willingly and knowingly rested upon my shoulders. I am here, to provide perspective. So let's do that. Basically, it's a limited resources type of situation, as such, allocation of said resources is rather important. The way it's worked out, for over the past 5 months, is that me and Soundscopes manage, either, large backstage systems and projects that enable the staff/players have a better experience (Duty Officer flags by Soundscopes, form database code by myself, to serve as examples), while Meowykins and Serveris manage the more bitesized chunks. this has a few effects that are tangible. You'll see large suggestions, feature suggestions, backslated for undetermined amounts of time Bulk updates for smaller things, as opposed to a running trickle Larger-than-feature projects shied away from, in lue of managing the community's suggestions and presented bugs Which I'm completely fine with, mind you. All three of these are effects which I don't take issue with: I find them to be a pragmatic approach to the given situation. However, it creates an issue whenever I poke my head up, and start taking note of what I actually want to do. And want some people want to see happen. You bet your arse they would be. Probably a lot of fun to code as well, actually. Been itching eversince the first, failed attempt. Let's go and make'em better! Fucking go-go-go! I, erm.. Right, the rest are occupied, so I guess? It'll only take 10 minutes to an hour per. Right? Oh, wait, I can't even reproduce this one... Sod. Slated already, Serveris and Meowy pick through the ones they can manage, at a tempo fitting to them. I've got an atmospherics code import to manage. Oh, Witt has the map? Righty, to the bugtracker it is. I uh.. No ETA. Probably this summer? I hope? We'll see how we manage. Then, what happens if we put this all into effect? We find ourselves trapped. In a pragmatic solution taken to an issue of picking between fair adherence to the Community's desires, personal judgement in terms of which large project to manage, and where to stall critical members with one large project, instead of focusing on things more immediately noticed by the Community. And, it's starting to grow displeasing to me, personally. Why? Because I want to see the new map, I want to see the Vaucra, I want to see a fancy website with fun shit added to it for IC interaction. But. I find myself focused on simpler things. Yeah, they matter, but I want to do both. Which would mean stalling something, again. And I wonder, for how long will the Community put up with such stalls? So, we have these big projects. We have what the community has clearly outlined as wanting, with some vocal members making sure we're aware of them (vocal minority, most of the time). And we have bugs. Well, which ones do I pick, and how? Because, I don't know. I really don't. I do plan on, however, at some point, moving towards fixing this issue. Perhaps whenever I am done with the spring related shenanigans, I can look into actively training a few individuals to help with the more bite-sized pieces of coding objectives.

Agreed with Jamini. It's unnecessary and actually detrimental to have cameras everywhere. If you want to keep up placing them, then sure. But having them in maint and incinerator by default would be detrimental. Severely so.

This is probably not the place to ask but. Is it more code fix's or are they writing whole new code for a land based map. (Like how floor tiles shouldn't vent a whole room when broken.) The new map is frozen until the summer, effectively. I'm getting swamped with life and work here, and I don't want to shove it onto Soundscopes, at which point he'd have to hold the project lead up himself. So yeah, don't worry about that for now, it's effectively irrelevant.

I'd say the taser is fine. Due to what Sue pointed out. I may review the nuke op's gear and the coefficient their armour has (it might be a little low, but that might also be a placebo effect I'm assuming off of), but beyond that, they're fit for purpose. The argument of being able to bring a taser to a gunfight and walking away is slightly exaggerated. Properly geared ops will suck up the hits and return the favour with bullets. A larger issue is a stunbaton, imho.

The nuke ops shuttle and facility are slated for a change, following the map modifications currently planned. So yeh.

An idea, if I may? Instead of making the ling's actions visible, you can make the victim's change of appearance draw more attention. Something along the lines of, "Target McGoo's skin starts to morph and bubble, their body rapidly changing shape and form." Maybe add in a forced scream and slightly blurry vision for a second. Voila. You have something that grabs attention to the act and victim, not necessarily to the ling. It would also leave a rather horrific IC scene, enhancing the image of the changeling as a force of terror. Also, kind of need to shack up with Delta's line of thought. There doesn't need to be an easy fix to what an antag does. If you deem the mechanic abused, write a player complaint. It's actually kind of interesting for the geneticist to actually have engineering to do. Grab a protohuman, start messing with them until you get a desired form, inject and done.

Adminhelp next time. We'll get you set up and squared away so you could shoot stuff with the rest of them.

Started on GOON. Started at the final stages of the Ovaries station, played throughout the entire Donut 2 station, and then a good few months into the Mushroom station. For those who know the time references, anyways. Did, usually, either mining or security with a friend of mine. I was rather proud whenever I managed to get a RIG suit with uqill and whatnot. Also became somewhat good as a miner, if I do say so myself. And really enjoyed the heck out of it. Security was also a fun experience. Died a few times, fucked up a decent lot, but funtimes were had. One thing I was always afraid of, though, was playing antag. I did it a few times, and kinda never again. Because stressful. Minus nuke ops, nuke ops while antag was also fun. Also, Erec Bellard was my character, so that's where the name came from

Denied due to inactivity.

Attempted to get in touch with the player, they never returned contact. Please message me on the forums, or make another appeal, if you wish to have this looked at again.

Denied due to inactivity.

Ban expired.

Denied due to inactivity.