Skull132

Does the murder further roleplay, in that scene? Probably, but you could achieve the same exact result by doing something else. Say, spreading lies and deceit. So, that could probably be argued towards gank, as better alternatives with the same endstate exist. Probably a point I should have addressed, but I guess not all walls of text are created equal.

At that point, I will agree that you should be committed to actions taken, and not bent a knee right after. It's just disrespectful, at that point.

I will ask you something, Doomberg. How many of these scenarios, where the taking of a life is used as a method of distraction or scapegoating, are avoidable? They are, more often than not, situations that force you to place yourself into a direct confrontation with the antagonist, or to play by their strings. The thing is, using scapegoats is a proxy tactic. And more often than not, because of it, more easily avoidable than being an outright target. An example of this is managing an antag as a warden/security officer. If they kill you, and then escape, then you're basically an escape goat, a distraction.

DISCLAIMER Please, keep in mind, I wish to have a civil discussion, without calling anyone out. I hope that people gain perspective from this, I hope that people will adjust in accordance with the perspective gained, and that people do not jump onto the preface with arguments I already outlined. Please read the entire thing, including replies, maybe twice, thrice, and post a constructive reply. Let me make this very clear: inflamitory replies will be issued a warning, and deleted, if not changed. An inflamitory reply is not a reply that disagrees with the opinion that I have displayed, but is instead something which calls out another player, a group of players by name, and does not serve the the constructive nature of the argument. PREFACE Please treat the following five paragraphs as a preface and introduction. The actual discussion starts after the "SUBJECT" tag. I've been thinking. Those who know me and have managed to pick up, I am a fan of military culture. Last summer, I was given the chance to partake in an urban combat training camp with the EDL. The experience was amazing, got to learn about tactics, train and conduct raids in closed off areas, etcetera. A heck of a lot of fun was had with great folks. But let's take note of something: what I learned there was violent. It wasn't violent in the sense of, "There's blood, gore and guts everywhere!" It was violent in the sense that the actions on target were aggressive, fast, fluid. Let's pick my very first blank-fire exercise as an example of what I'll be trying to get at. My troop was clearing an empty school house-type building. There was an elongated corridor, we were on one side, couldn't see the other side clearly due to ground clutter and lighting conditions. I was second or third man down the file as we were walking and clearing the hall, when an MG3 lights us up from the other end (blanks). We dart to the closest rooms, but obviously enough, most of us had been dealt with in that ambush. We reorganize, try to get security up, but the fact is that we were pinned and SOL. Had the opposing team pushed, they could have taken us out easily enough, barring us getting nifty with open windows and building structure. Soon enough, an instructor calls the exercise over and we go to debrief/analyze. Why do I tell this tale? Because it illustrates a point: we were completely unaware of the fact that the enemy had set up the ambush, and we were given no chance to retort. The following days illustrated this point quite clearly: every leg up on the opposing side that you can get, you take. Now, those folks were real soldiers, we're playing 2D spess. But still, something irks me, something I sometimes wish we could carry over from that: let action serves as roleplay. Basically, in my book, there should be situations where one side gets caught with their pants down. There should be situations where one side is clearly more powerful than the other. There should be situations where actions are placed above words, and those actions are carried out in a rapid, fluid manner. And that it apply to both sides. The question shouldn't be about the existence of these situations. But instead, how and why they were made. As it stands, Security is given, by the majority and loud population of our community, free reign to escalate force as they seem fit in response to a situation. Antagonists are not. Yes, there are cases where the jump to lethal force was uncalled for (pointless changeling deathstings and fratricide among nuke ops), but those are dealt with by staff. I do not enjoy seeing this, and I enjoy even less having to deal with it. SUBJECT Let's get to the matter at hand, now. The above I'd rather serve as an introduction, dissecting it and seeing whether or not it can be applied to SS13 seems a little bit too silly for me. Obviously, the environments are largely different, but I hope it serves as a bit of a window into some things. Point one, what constitutes as gank, and what not? Two examples: Two openly hostile terrorists are stowed away on the Research Outpost. They have, by this point, engaged in combat with intent to wound and kill Security and Command on multiple occasions. After failed attempts at getting at them, the Security team manages to execute an assault plan that ends with one of the hostiles dead, the other captured. The plan involved running a sniper round through the first guy's head, and neutralizing the other guy with a barrage of stun rounds. They were unable to retort. A nuke operative, lone one, infiltrates the station, and rigs three charges in Engineering, in preparation of action against him. He hides them, and sets two of them on proxy, planning to use them as anti-personnel mines. He is not detected. Once the ambush is set, he proceeds onto his main target. While conducting actions on target, he goads the Chief Engineer to go into Engineering. Unaware, the CE steps onto the first device, causing a detonation. The second device is set off in a similar fashion. The CE was not aware of their placement, and was caught in the blast. He died with no chance to retort. The third device was set off in the SMES room, with a welding fuel tank attached to increase yield, resulting in all of the SMES being knocked out of action, and thus, the station losing power. In my opinion, the opinion that humbly belongs to me, myself, and none other, neither is gank. Both had roleplay preceding the incident. For example one, it was the escalation of force as the situation developed. The Security team found a way to gain an upper hand, and used it. Due to the fact that a lethal gunfight had preceded this attack, ROE was adjusted to match and trump. Simple as that. Second example, the roleplay preceding is the successful infiltration of the station by the Nuke Operative, and the setup for the ambush. It did not involve the Chief Engineer in the slightest, no. But it was used to serve the higher purpose of roleplay, in the sense that it occupied the station with a larger disaster, allowing the Operative to complete his own task with less hindering him. The Chief Engineer is marked as acceptable collateral damage, and the world carries on. Yeah, sucks for the player, but they can wait 30 minutes and join as a new character. Remember, roleplay is not about winning. It is not about surviving. No one should be guaranteed their safety, their survival. If you end up in a well crafted ambush, and it ends with you dead, but serving a purpose higher than to just kill you, then I would urge you not to take issue with it. Instead, look at the setting and atmosphere that the opposing side was trying to generate, and see how it worked out. And please do so by distancing yourself from what happened. It's a game, after all. Point two. What I described above comes with a very large disclaimer attached: if the actions conducted serve the higher purpose of roleplay. What the fuck does that mean? Big ass words, these: "If," "serve," "higher purpose." Simple-stupid version: if it's about more than just the kill. My opinion, is that if you're after a singular kill, and nothing more, then you do need to make it interesting for the other party. Whereas if you're planning something more, something that involves more than just a singular target, you are allowed to touch more souls. In fact, it's better if you do! Killing people can be both a tool, and a goal. Instance two, it was used as a tool. It was used correctly in the manner that it mobilized an entire station towards something. This something happened to be playing straight into the antag's hand, but that's how the cookie crumbles. You cannot win every time. When using it as a tool, serving the higher purpose of roleplay would mean that killing is used to enable you, and your actions, so that you may involve more and more people in the scenario you are creating/hosting/participating in. Instance one, it's also used as a tool. It was a tool used by Security to gain control over a situation, and the actions of the opposing team allowed them to succeed at it. Fair game. When using killing as a goal, that's when you should make an effort of making the game interesting for the targeted party. I'm not a fan of handicapping yourself for the sake of roleplay (personally,), but even then, you should make it interesting. Even hitman style, clean and professional style raids can be made fun and interesting. In keeping with the personal opinion outlined a sentence ago, the receiving party should keep an understanding mindset about the situation. Again, if you get outplayed, then so be it. It should be perfectly fine to engineer a situation where retorting is difficult, if not impossible. But the key is: these situations take time to create, and usually have moving pieces. Each minute you spend on it, and each moving piece you incorporate, your threat of detection rises. So, make it interesting, but also try to make it believable (both in the sense of the antagonist character's capabilities, and the victim's expectations in mind). But now, point three. What is gank, then? "You clearly outlined that ambushes and set up situations aren't gank. Buuut I just got deathstung by a ling I didn't know shit about. How's that different from being quickly and quietly subdued, taken away, tortured and killed?" Very simple. Did the deathstinging serve a purpose? Was the antagonist using murder to escape? Was he trying to achieve anything beyond just killing a random person, because he could? Nope? Gank. Were you the Captain, engaged in a firefight with another ling, and he just kinda crept up on you? Shady, but I'd call it not gank. You were involved in a confrontation already, and the dude was covering his wingman, an action most likely coordinated between the two lings, definitely. How about the being subdued and gagged bit? Were you a singular target? And just kinda, taken away with stungloves, bagged and tagged, after which the antag went onto normal life again? Making sure he won't be discovered? Gank. Actions did not serve any purpose of roleplay, what so ever, and the antagonist failed his duty to create an atmosphere and conflict. Were you toyed around with, and did character development take place? Better. Hopefully you enjoyed it, as a participating player. DISCLAIMER Please, keep in mind, I wish to have a civil discussion, without calling anyone out. I hope that people gain perspective from this, I hope that people will adjust in accordance with the perspective gained, and that people do not jump onto the preface with arguments I already outlined. Please read the entire thing, maybe twice, thrice, and post a constructive reply. Let me make this very clear: inflamitory replies will be issued a warning, and deleted, if not changed. An inflamitory reply is not a reply that disagrees with the opinion that I have displayed, but is instead something which calls out another player, a group of players by name, and does not serve the the constructive nature of the argument.

Thank you for posting context. My reply was based on the assumption that he staged an escape attempt, or managed to escape. If he did that, then I would approve of such actions -- tools are meant for a purpose, and the use of lethal force to escape a situation like that, to me, looks to fall within ROE. The exact circumstances, and whether the sting was actually warranted or not, will be found out shortly. It's my job to see every side of every argument presented. And I said that I can see why someone would do that, I never said that I approve of it, nor did I say that I condemn it. I simply stated that I would personally not do such an act, that it looks like it goes against the human rules of sportsmanship (ergo, it was "Eh..."). My words mean exactly that: I can see the reason why someone would do this. That's it. So cool your roll, Susan.

According to forum time, I think the ban's experied by now. I'm curious, did Tenenza make note of the fact that you can respond to an adminhelp by clicking on the Staff member's name?

Jumping in with a personal opinion, and not that of the Staff's final response (Doomberg and Jennalele are in charge of that). Looking at the complaint, I dooon't see an issue with the harmstinging. Antag is trapped, sees himself at threat of a loyalty or a tracking implant, and chooses to use a tool at his disposal to attempt escape. Yeah, that's how it goes. In the middle of a firefight, the antag finds a way to close distance and neutralize another opponent. Done. Yeah, players will be out of the round because of it, but that's how the cookie crumbles, and conflict without actual consequences is horribly boring and mundane. The useage of monkeys is another thing. Personally, I wouldn't do it just because eh, but I can see the reason behind it. So, dunno.

Complaint deemed inactive. Reviews on staff enforcement of standards have been conducted over the period of last month, in part, due to this complaint. Should any parties find the subject matter here worthy of furthered discussion, please create a new complaint thread and reference this one. Locked and archived.

Staff member in question has been dismissed over the course of the month of January, 2015. Complaint closed and archived.

I'll speak my mind on this. Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that you appear to be someone who can disassociate themselves, and are potentially capable of doing a good job at being a moderator (that is, looking at issues objectively, placing yourself in someone else's shoes, so on). However. And here's the "but." Not only are your actions and your conduct are abrasive, a lot of the time, needlessly so. When you consider that the job of a moderator goes right against such conduct, meaning, you will often find yourself in a situation where you need to deescalate an issue, instead of escalating it, I fear you may fall short. I have been told that you were informed of this by another member of staff, if not two (I do believe Valkrae talked to you about it. If not, ring me up, I'll talk). So, under the condition that you review and conduct based on the issues that they have raised, I do believe you'll have better luck next cycle. Basically: I see potential, but there are just a few issues that need to be swiped away before running through the gates again.

I'm not seeing it, nor is the rest of the staff. If memory serves, and consider this to be potentially out of date, the last logins from your main and secondary accounts were at least a week, if not 2-3 ago. You are not active enough to have the familiarity with the server and community required to be an effective member of its moderation staff, nor does it look like you're willing to, or putting in, for that matter, the effort to change that.

Completely depedent on the item and what you want it to do, Hackie. For a custom suit or resprited thing, roughly 5-6 lines of code and a database entry. The most complex you can get, though, is when an item requires modification of an existing proc/item interaction. Speaking personally here, I actually prefer the more interesting items, code wise. I am more partial to doing 100 lines of interesting code, than 5 lines of repetative code.

Mind you, monkeys aren't simple mobs. They're carbon based mobs, like a normal human.

This has only started happening recently. Before the start of this week, threads like this didn't exist. I'm fine with either, but what irks me is that people bottle themselves up, don't talk to anyone anywhere, and then toss their hat in. This is feedback. Feedback that hasn't existed for the past 4 months. Not that it matters now, we're here, and I do love the fact that this is an actual thread that I can mull over, and nod my head, planning future movement and actions. My approach of mirroring the mentality of, "laissez-faire" is over. It was a fun thing to do, as it allowed me to focus on code and not actually managing personnel, but. It is obvious that the system has flaws. Cute ones, ones that you wouldn't really spot on paper. But, give me a day. Perhaps two, maybe even thirty. We'll see where this little adventure takes us. Let's start from here, shall we? Everyone here, adjust your fire, and get off of the trend of calling each other shit. Please, get constructive.

Every single complaint, every single article, every single post, every single action has reason behind it. The worst mistake you can commit while being a member of an evolutionary entity, such as a community, is say, "Right, this is good enough," and flag any criticism thrown at you as, "not fit," "not based on real info," "not true." Well, hi, this is how the world works: beyond the folks that just lie and cause issues for the fuck of it, which there are a few, everyone else has their opinion form on the basis of some experience. This opinion may be extreme, and the opinion itself may be misguided, but there is a basis there. An objective truth of, "This happened at this time, at this place, with these people involved," conveyed through a potentially extremely subjective opinion. Guess what. Objective truth is a bitch and a half, but should be taken note of regardless. Regardless of how you get access to it. You take note, and adjust fire. As simple as that. Ultimately, my door is open. And the doormat only has 2 or 3 unique footprints on it. Which makes me disappointed.

The simple thought: any initial brig timer exceeding 30 minutes, or a charge demanding the permabrigging of an individual, should pass Command Staff review (ergo, a tribunal). These aren't court cases, mind you, but they should be given a say in their defence (or, at least, the Command Staff should provide it). Following this, whatever action the Command Staff decides on can be taken. This would mean that harsh crimes go under review, which will make committing them a bit more feasible and antags less scared.

I'm just going to put my foot behind this, because I like the point of it. I will add this: players should not be getting burnt out at the idea of balds. And yet we still get adminhelps, legitimate adminhelps, from senior players that go along the lines of, "Bald chemist." To which we usually smile, nod, and say that we're tracking (do note, we usually don't even adminghost around people like that. Unless they have an invalid name, we don't pay second thought to them). But, the fact that this is still happening is ridiculous. And it's a nice showcase of the issue present.

It's actually somewhat nice that we've managed to give off the vibe you describe, Spiffy. But it's just that. We do get tired. Admins and mods get tired, burnt out, etcetera. But because we work as a team, and as a somewhat well communicating team, we cover for each other and help each other back up.

What about cases like myself and Scopes, where both teams are represented? I'm curious.

Delta. Allow me to clear a misconception you have going on here. Admins have always been able to pick their OOC colour. Just, the way it worked out was this: I used Green to match my team, the Developers. The exact same reason I use blue as it stands. I am the leader of my team, ergo, I wear their colour. Scopes used Green because, dunno. Every other admin used some shade of red or amber/orange. Why? Don't ask me, but the colours they chose themselves, they have never been preset for them. Now, with that out of the way, lemme point something out. The, currently, Developer blue is not an effective means of distinguishing Moderators from normal OOC, because it is barely distinguishable. This is why Developers are now dark blue, as they have less urgency to them, and Moderators stand out with dark-khaki green. Moderators should stand out more than Developers, and this is what the current preset colour scheme has going for it. Beyond that, the argument would be to standardize the Admin colours, because I do not want to flip the Mod/Dev colours back, for reason stated above. As for admins using colours like this and this, beyond the measure of a good joke, file and admin complaint and it will be dealt with.

HRK, do I want to join or not.. Are you running an RP game, or just a free-for-all?

Application has been accepted. Welcome to the team, Rechkalov.

Gentlemen, and ladies, Allow me to make this point clear and brief. No amount of mechanical tweaking will fix this. No amount of changes to the code will fix this. No amount of talking will fix this. No amount of shifting the blame will fix this. The only thing that will fix this issue is action. Allow me to very delicately describe the situation that Staff currently rests in: We are very quaintly stuck between an n count of people who will attack us if we start trying to mend this here issue with both sides, because hey, we're suddenly going against their fun and trying to dictate how things work. Now, back onto what'll actually fix this. As I said, actions will. It's really, god damned simple. Stop acting like pricks towards others. I'm sorry, but yeah. Do that. What you perceive as an in-joke is, can be, will be perceived as an act of open hostility by a new player, and make them feel unwanted. Soo, stop: Discriminating against every bald Yelling at people who accidentally call restart votes Backseat adminning Clique-related attitude If someone does something dumb, you tell an admin. If they're new, moreso. Otherwise it'll end will you lot descending upon someone like a horde of harpies upon someone who may not be deserving. Oh, and to you veteran folk, who put out lines like this: Start working towards fixing the situation. Seriously. Admins can't act without grounds, and you can provide us this grounds. Call me up, tell me, "This dude is being shitler because A, B, and C," and I will do my best re-enactment of this guy right here:

Important things: - IPCs are impervious to paincrit (!this is an amazing thing, seriously, it really fucking is!) - IPCs have a brute damage modified (either 0.5 or 1.5, Iiiii forget) - IPCs are impervious to disease and organ failure - IPCs are impervious to radiation - IPCs do not need a breathable atmosphere nor oxygen, they just need some sort of gas that is at room temperature - IPCs are unable to enter EVA without a modified RIG suit (they require advanced temperature control) -- Helmets make IPCs overheat (this is a kek, and will be fixed) - IPCs do not have their own language (current options: give them all hunam languages + one xenos, or give them their own language; I prefer the former) -- I do not wish to give IPCs binary, because it doesn't make sense, and can lead to excruciatingly dumb things - IPCs lack auto-regeneration -- They are unable to fix themselves -- Note that this fact is kind of pushed aside when you consider that they do not feel pain, and are not debilitated by it. Meaning: they can run around with 100+ damage without keeling over and going into pain/oxyloss death - IPCs will shortly be able to select their own colour (because, why not? We paint our laptops, as Scopes said, so let's get coloured IPCs! (dontmakemeregretthis ;-) - IPCs die rather hilariously to EMPs

I will say one thing. An alternate solution, and one that I would have let happen, is have security deal with your character, Bobsen, as they would have sought fit and let the round play out. And then contact you at the end of the round, and run, basically a review. Though this may have resulted in you being permabrigged for causing difficulties in a high stress situation, and them just opting to make away with you. Also, wasn't there, but if Sec really didn't communicate with you much beyond arresting and so on, then we may have an issue. Although, I hope that the majority of the players present at the time (at least two did: the HoS and Meowy) read this and take some advice.