Skull132

I hate this argument. Corporate Regulation, article i102, Petty Theft, reads as following: You are privatizing equipment that is in limited supply. Yes, you are not keeping them on your person, however, I would argue that you are privatizing the knowledge of their location, by moving them away from the publically known, and otherwise designated location. Now, to prove a point. If I was to move an armoury locker away from the armoury, how many HoS's and Captains would get in my face, and charge me with grand theft? Most all of them. Because I am effectively committing all of those things. Yes, you can say that the core of the matter is different, because I'm moving lethal weaponry and not life-saving equipment, however, I would say that the core is the same, just the nuances are different. Here is my perspective: Quicker access to weaponry lowers the response time of my troops, and as such, they can be potentially life-saving. So we're both now talking about the relocation of life-saving equipment, right? Right. Now, why would I be arrested, and why should all of medical who do this also be arrested? Because I am creating a situation where standard equipment is held in a non-standard location. Why is this bad? Because it creates the potential for the following situation to emerge: a dude joins, no one tells him where things are, he dies because he can't find them. What you, JBoy, are doing, is rules-lawyering. It's not pleasant, and if you want to pick up this fight, then let me show you how twisted the Corporate Regulations can actually be, if properly and fully enforced. Now, back on topic, yes, you've said this, Tainavaa. That it has both pros and cons, and whatnot. But here's the thing, the one thing that gets me: there are no repercussions for violations like this. I can make a bet with myself, that if I was to join as Captain, catch your CMO or any other doctor doing this, and write them up, then nothing would happen. Well, perhaps the only thing that would happen is you actually stop doing it, but as it stands, I don't know if I can be even certain in that. Perhaps we've burnt too many bridges, due to both of our actions over certain topics, but we need to figure something out here. I have no issue with you complaining over the following things: Feeling singled out by the admin staff The way Soundscopes handled the issue The way Pumpkingslice handled the issue I'm completely fine with discussing those matters, because they are important, and need to be discussed. But what irks me is the fact that, as far as I'm tracking, we're just continuing the argument that started over AHelps. Is there a point in making a big fuss over the core message of, "Moving RIGs from EVA storage, unless circumstances that actually require such preparation exist, is frowned upon, if not prohibited"? To clarify: the way the message was carried is not nice, and ought to be looked at, but the message itself should be understood and not rules-lawyered over. And here comes the ultimate reason why: setting a precedence. If we allow this, then we force ourselves into a position where we need to allow other activities like this as well. To include security moving their hardsuits, which would then render EVA as a place completely obsolete. Followed by science hoarding voidsuits and normal softsuits. All of these arguments would rise up, to the same exact degree, except they would have one extra card to pull: "Well, you let medical do this, so, why can't we?" At some point, we need to draw the line. And my personal wish is to draw the line here, and now, for all of the reasons detailed above.

I'm just going to stop you right there. Skull, I never said anything like this. Please stop being so hostile towards me. Notice the "IF" statement. I didn't have time to wait for a response, so I wrote a preemptive one and bound it into a clause. If you think that way, the keep reading past the clause itself, if you don't think that way, then feel free to disregard the sentence. I'm not seeing an issue here: I don't insinuate, I just try to nip a few issues and thought processes that I see potentially emerging preemptively. So, please run the following code: -If(ZipZero.argument == "IPCs think like humans") ---read_argument() -else ---return Also, about me being hostile. Yes, because I'm starting to get tired. Take a step back for a second, and look at the topics you've stirred up over the past few days. Every single time you've raised the IPC race and their limitations, you've tried to force your way, found the staff in opposition, and gotten yourself into amusing little battles, where you try to give us as little ground as possible. And frankly, I'm getting slightly sick of it. I'm not here to wage these massive arguments about lore. I'm not here to answer every single fathomable question, "Why". I'm a fucking human, doing this out of my spare time, and most likely losing my nerves over this in the long run. Just once, I would appreciate a message along the lines of, "IPCs can't be heads, because of reasons," from the staff to receive a nod and a, "Aayup, sure." Instead, this gets turned into a battle where everything lore, reason, and outside of it is chucked at us. Great, right? Totally something that makes us want to come back here. Mhm. No, we aren't here to have these tug of war matches, and I would very gladly just lock this thread with the notice that Tablespoon just posted, since you're so inclined to throw lore arguments at our faces. Of course, I like to fight fire with fire. So this is the end result, over which I am not fussed. But hey, that's just me whining. Back on topic. As noted, it's a sentence in a clause, a "Just in case, so you don't start even thinking this way," type of deal.

I don't think there exist any chain of events that will permit a race of synthetic, artificial beings to gain acceptance to such a high degree. Also, if you want to discuss psychology, then let's go party: The one aspect that a human has, and that is desirable over an artificial intelligence, is wisdom. A program cannot gain wisdom, and yet, wisdom is a very important aspect of a leader. A program can learn, but it cannot become learned. A program can make decisions based on previous examples, but it cannot go against them and make judgement on gut feeling. All of these are desirable aspects for a leader to have, because they make the leader flexible, and set him apart from a follower. Also, an artificial intelligence lacks the capacity for free, radical thought that a human has. Thus, the avenues for problem solving, specially in delicate social situations, would be different. And as such, again, a human/organic would trump an AI. These are the reasons why AIs serve as high-level advisers, who have a lot of power, but not as actual commanders. Because they lack the qualities above. they can advise, and conduct under orders to a very high degree. But never lead. And if you want to argue that an IPC has thought exactly like a human, then let me ask you this: why the fuck did you apply for an IPC, if this is your mode of thought? So you could play a skinny, metallic human with a screen instead of a face, while completely ignoring the psychological differences between the two? Races need to be different. This deems that not all races are equal in every respect. Availability for command is a very meaningful way to curb and set a race apart from the rest. I will not have 6 races of pseudo-humans who are equal in all but speech pattern and appearance. But it appears that I'm being shoved in that direction. Quaint.

Lemme latch onto this one in specific. I'm going to ask you to think with me for a moment. The environment that Aurora is trying to create is a heavy roleplay environment, as such, rules and regulations exist. There would be someone ICly, who catches up on folks doing things like this. And those folks would, eventually, get curbed or demoted. However, we lack this institution, and as such, as required to manage this OOCly. Which is what you are seeing. Now, okay, we're coming off as too forceful in your eyes right now. How else could we do this? Because you know no one is bothered enough ICly to pick up on these. Not even the IAAs, or the Captains. They just can't be fucked as of now. The second point is, when there's no one ICly curbing behaviour, it spreads, and eventually it becomes very easy to pull the, "Everyone is doing it, why are you yelling at me?" card. Now, how do we solve this, Tainavaa? Because these are things that need to be enforced, otherwise it'll end up with the card I noted earlier being pulled on fun things, like Science making weapons, CMOs filling their hypos with CH, and so forth (I've had instances of both situations, albeit half a year or more ago).

Psst, with the library now fully functional, this may just be unnecessary. Thoughts?

As much as I want to speak my mind here, specially on the conduct of the security team, I am going to steel myself until the commander in question is given a chance to make his case.

That's because we don't broadcast punitive action. Since August, I, personally, have been aware of a dozen cases where the leadership of staff has taken action against its own folks. To include demotions and dismissals. Purely from the development side, two individuals have been dismissed and a count reprimanded for actions they should not have undertaken. However. We do not broadcast this. So yes, sometimes it may feel like nothing was done. No, being apart of staff does not automatically give us respect. But neither does being a player here. Here's a concept that was drilled into my head some time ago, someplace elsewhere: "Respect is a two way road." If you start being crass towards staff, which you admit to be, then we'll start being shorthanded with you. Tone yourself back, and we'll tone ourselves back. It's as simple as that: it's a two way relationship where both sides have the right to play both the reactionary and proactive role. Speaking personally, and while this may have no bearing here, I respect the amount of work people put into any given topic. I have worked and sided with people whose personality and choices I cannot bring myself to respect, but I did respect them for the work they done, and leaned on that to get through. I don't expect this type of conduct on average, mind you. Now, on the subject of the actual complaint itself. It might have been one of those moments where just shrugging it off, by Dea, would have been the best action. Zip does not, as far as my knowledge serves, a history of being snide, problematic, offensive, etcetera. And as such, taking aggressive action against them, when what they said is, at most, a questionable attempt at calling out someone's authority, does seem like an overreaction (because the comment would have done no damage, what so ever). Although, Zip could have also just ceased when asked to. There's little point in prodding after that request has been issued.

There isn't a single way to antag, though. I have seen antag rounds with promise take about 2 hours to get rolling, but despite the wait period, they had potential to be good. And then a vote gets called, and the prep-work and potential is gone. This is already enforced. 30 minutes between valid votes.

During an admin meeting, the topic of having the standard round time upped from two hours to something larger. We discussed doing this conditionally, dependent on round, but the idea was scrubbed, as it would imply favourtism towards certain modes and types of antags. Instead, we would like to present you the idea of upping the standard timer, for every round. The decision in question: Increasing the "No-vote" period from 2 hours to 3, regardless of round type Reasons to consider this: 3 hours would provide certain roundtypes, such as Cultist, Heist, more time to get things going and create an atmosphere, instead of being afraid of the relatively short two hour deadline It may also do something about situations where extended is voted out of at the two hour mark, only to enter another extended round that gets voted out of another two hours later Feel free to discuss the matter below. The poll will run for a week. This will be placed into effect. It's an effective compromise in the following fashion: If the round has no promise, or is shit, majority will vote out, and the shuttle will tick over. If the round holds promise for the majority, then it'll continue, leaving only a minority without their wish. After the 3 hour mark, it becomes the old, one-swing-vote-winning spiel that we know and love. Sound good?

I would wish to say "No" on granting Reyjakai a whitelisted position. He has been caught numerous times with weaponry as a scientist when there was no need for it. Even today, on an extended round, with temporary RD access, McMullen is armed with an Advanced Protopistol and a Laser Pointer. Both of with are OOCly considered, at least for me, weapons. If this is behavior that we wish to cull, then granting a person who seems indulging in this constantly a whitelist, would be counter productive towards this goal. It also leaves me a feeling that they're in it for the cool access, and the ability to bypass questioning, instead of actually taking up a a role of authority to teach and guide.

Tainavaa, had I not made this complaint, would you have done anything about the situation in question, and how it played out?

With the recent upscaling of Pumpkingslice's event, it has become apparent that we need a steady, usable element within the community, that is capable of extending the reach of the Staff, and thus involve more of the community. We eventually decided that this element is most easily found in the Heads of Staff, whitelisted players, that populate our station and server. As such, we would like to try and involve you as the backbone, so that you may further involve the average player. If you are interested in participating in this event as a Head of Staff, and receiving tasking on what to do during a round, given the time, then please fill out the form below in a reply to this thread. [b]CKey:[/b] [b]Character Name(s)/Position:[/b] [b]Extra Notes:[/b] EXAMPLE:

I was in Science at the time too, am I guessing I had a part in that mood? Actually, you weren't. It was just Faith and Tina.

Not an excuse I am willing to accept, not anymore. There are a good few issues that the character has been presented with, and that have been overlooked for one reason or another. For me, the display of incompetence, favouritism and outright failure to serve the IC and OOC responsibility that the privilege of playing a Head of Staff presents you with is enough to make me maintain this complaint against you. Understand: playing a Head of Staff is a privilege. It is a duty accepted willingly, and with it comes responsibilities. I am sick and tired of watching this idea be burned to the ground by people not understanding that playing a Head of Staff is just slightly more than getting swanky access, and more liberty to do dumb shit. That playing this specific role in a 2D spessmans game might just amount to something sligthly bigger than not being questioned upon judgement calls, and getting to sign forms. Maybe I've been doing something wrong here, in the grand scheme of things? Too far to figure that one out. So here I am, instead. Think about it, would you? And figure out what you actually want to do about this issue.

The issue I have here is that you were purely a reactionary force, not a proactive one. You must have been aware of all of the actions Lucy was taking, and had not taken. At no one point did you choose to step in, or try and stop the escalation of the issues present. You simply stood there, nodded and answered when needed, instead of even making sure that your friend doesn't go overboard. As far as I'm tracking, you didn't even inform the Captain, only gave information when requested. Being a purely reactionary force is okay and totally acceptable as a follower. Being a purely reactionary force as a leader is signing off with complete disregard towards your duties to the position that you hold. And it's bad.

I made a point of keeping my IC actions separate from OOC/Msay. And frankly, the only thing I was doing over MSay was moaning up a storm out of being annoyed to shit. If you're referring to Avery/Doomberg getting witnesses on you with SecHUDs, I ICly referred to Whisper, as she had been with my character as you walked by. Beyond that, I don't know how many witnesses he got, or how he got them. You can ask him. If it's something else that you're referring to, please, explain. And about the being tired things? I'm done hearing that excuse. It's the hallmark of a leader who is unable to maintain accountability for their own actions and the actions of their team. A leader is suppose to recognize when they are at odds with their current status, and say, "No, I won't take on this responsibility of leadership, as I am unfit." It irks me to hell and back, and it needs to stop existing as an excuse, or the people bringing it up as an excuse need to reevaluate their position.

BYOND Key: Skull132/Erec Bellard Player Byond Key: Seven Ghost/Lucy Sparks Tainavaa/Tina Kaekel Greenspider/Faith Johnson Reason for complaint: Summary of the situation: Preface: I agree with the fact that the character I played (Erec Bellard) is an arse, and argumentative. However, my engagements were, I believe, measured and only spanned one conversation. From which, apparently, all of the blow came to be. Right. Initial situation as follows: I go to grow things in Hydroponics, having joined as a scientist. Lucy Sparks (RD), Tina Kaekel (HoP) and Faith Johnson (Scientist) are sitting in the RnD lab, chitchatting and whatever else have you. Incident one: While growing things, and making my research, Erec and Faith get into a debate about whether or not removing EVA helms in a specific situation is smart or not. Both sides slander eachother with plain words like, "Dumb" and so on. Eventually, Lucy steps in and orders the net to be cleared. Both characters abide, and the science channel falls silent. The argument is dropped, as I don't interact with Faith outside of comms, due to them three being in the RnD lab, and me in Hydroponics. Things continue per normal. Incident two: While I was working in Hydroponics, Lucy Sparks walked past me wearing a secHUD (that she was eventually going to give to the detective, as I determined). Beepsky passed by in the opposing direction. Shortly after Lucy goes out of my view range, Beepsky starts ticking after me. About 3 times, my records are altered by Lucy Sparks. She later admits it to both Tina Kaekel, and Faith Johnson. As I am later told by a ghost, they basically shrug it off and carry on, as if this was the norm and acceptable. Following this, I jump chain (as is procedure when your line-leader does this) and go to the Captain to file a complaint. I fill the complaint, go back to my work. Incident three: I have finished my shenanigans in Hydroponics, and want to go back to RnD. The door is locked. I open the panel to find the bolt wire rigged with a signaler and the bolt light wire cut. Faith and Tina (Lucy was occupied, and elsewhere) are in the room, playing dumb for a few moments before they unlock the door. I get infuriated ICly, and call the Captain over. Some verbal bitching and moaning from all sides (myself included), and the end situation comes down to the Lucy and Faith admitting to having rigged the door. The Captain and a sec officer are finishing the situation, I request permission to continue with my work, and go to lathe up a piece I need. I get flashed and cuffed by Lucy. The situation is resolved with the Captain asking Lucy to walk away. She makes a break for it, disarms the Captain, takes his weapon and then gets slammed to the ground by security. Summary of issues to present: Lucy Sparks lacking any professionalism while in command, to the point where they find (as observed by a third party) illegal action acceptable, as long as it's done by they're considered a friend (Reference incident three, and with them being aware of the tampering with the door; reference incident two, and with them considering actions like that the ones they conducted themselves acceptable) Improper conduct on the behalf of Lucy Sparks as a Head of Staff (Reference incident two and the end of incident three) Favourtism to the point of interfering with command duties on the behalf of Lucy Sparks & Tina Kaekel (Neither took any actions against Erec Bellard, his conduct, or Faith Johnson, and her conduct. Further more, reference incident two, Tina Kaekel was fully aware of the massive overstepping of bounds conducted by Lucy Sparks, and took no action against it due to them being friends) Unnecessary escalation of force, illogical escalation of force on the behalf of Lucy Sparks (Reference incident three, to go as far as to attempt to ghetto-arrest your scientist I don't have an issue with; but to disarm the captain and take their weapon after being already put into the dirt once is irksome, and is not something that should happen, in my opinion, as a head of staff) Overall conduct observed is inexcusable and not permissible in my eyes. To play the favourite card to the point where you yourself start hunting for your staff, is idiotic and sets a terrible example. Further more, it's counter productive towards gameplay, OOCly. The two heads in question did nothing beyond inciting conflict: no steps to resolve, compromise, or etcetera were taken on their behalf, beyond the usage of force. No attempts to talk to me were made, only Lucy setting me to arrest.

Response is escalated in accordance with any given situation. Jumps in escalation can be used to gain initiative in a given situation. Two sets of rules that I abide, both while playing Sec and while playing antag. If you have the situation under control, then you are, generally, free to prod and poke with less than lethal means, try creative problem solving, etcetera. However, should you find yourself sorely lacking that control, you need to attain it, in order to minimize the effect any given opposing side can have on you, your troops and assets. Now, this is not me saying, "You lack control? Go ham." Careful and precise application of force is very effective at locking down any given force aboard the station, barring Nar'sie: lock down a few halls, post a few patrols, force the enemy back into a single room, even if by visual/perceived threat alone. This is a rule set that applies, as I said, while I'm playing either side. Antags need to recognize that the harder you try to twist the arm of the station, the more liable they are to try and kick you in the teeth. Recognize this, and use this. Provoke a hyper-responsive security force and watch the fun unfold as they chase and mill about, all the while you quietly tend to your own business, for example. On the side of the rules, I will say one thing, though. Don't be a hero. Security is a force that should not initiate, or potentially even sustain, an engagement unless they lack a numerical advantage of 2:1 or higher. They are not trained for individual combat of that caliber. Antags are given this liberty due to the fact that they already deploy in a small team composition, at which point individual skills are expected to be higher, and tactics trained to the point where conducting an engagement with odds of 1:2 or worse will result, at the very least, the survival of the individual. Just my 2 cents. Oh, and shooting bald officers because they are being retards with a baton is dumbshit. Taser them down and cuff'em, or better yet, bang'em. Don't go hunting for a bloody laser rifle. You'll get your ass canned for being an incompetent leader who doesn't know how to properly assess a situation.

Could serve as a place of previous employment for Erec, my RD/scientist/mechanical engineer. Albeit, this would have been some many years ago.

Oh! OH! I also want this! Can I have this?!

The remaining "original" admins are Covert0ddity and Nightmare, if memory serves. Oh, and Chaznoodles. The previous Head Admins, in chronological order (if I'm missing someone, feel free to correct me, Chaz): Danmaggedon F_Sphere (can't remember if he was, or wasn't -- t'was complicated) Subdigital Yeahchris FFrances

Self-consistency does not mean, include, nor exclude scientific accuracy. If you establish that Plasma does X, Y, Z, despite it being scientifically improbable, but stick to it only doing X, Y and Z, then you're consistent without being 100% scientifically accurate. Also, there is one thing that the loreteam has always, always, always lacked: a mission statement. "Who are we; why are we here; what do we want to achieve; how do we want to achieve it." With that established, you should have a, finally, matching approach, and less conflict. Beyond that, consolidate work efforts. Okay, let's look at how a game is released (let's thing before the DLCs came about, so we're talking about expansion packs with actual sustenance): Core game is released; it is a standalone item that creates, effectively, a universe A series of patches is released to fix any mistakes in the initial launch An expansion pack is released, sometimes a standalone, that expands on the universe, while remaining connected to the initial piece A series of patches is released to fix any mistakes in the launch of the expansions pack Repeat steps 3 & 4 Translate into lore: Core mechanics of the universe and settings are explained (in our case, also the core-most worlds and races) The core information is 'patched' as needed, and expanded upon The world is expanded with a manageable chunk that ties into the core universe The released chunk is 'patched' as needed, and expanded upon Repeat steps 3 & 4 Alternatively, stare at this graph: http://www.webserv.ca/images/developmentCycle.gif

*In a little kid's voice, as if sitting on Santa's lap and looking up, ignorantly, at the man's face* I want a space ship. And I want a kingdom. And I want a pony. And I want a Pumpkingslice. And I want a world's peace! PumpkingSlice: I want you to die this Christmas Skull...

Well, it's a situation a few people have been in. a few times, yeah, it happens. But it becomes a problem when this happens on a regular basis, on a daily basis. And the frank way to put it, right now, it has with certain people. The issue comes in the form of certain people feeling rejected, neglected. And, obviously, beyond that point, they no longer feel apart of our community. But where does the fault lie? As always, it's a two-sided issue. First off, obviously, if all the dude does is sit in his post, then he is not going to get anywhere or anything done. But if the character actively asks if anyone's about, and everyone is too engrossed in their personal storythreads to reply, then, it starts to shift a little. One cannot expect to become apart of a storyline by just sitting about, and gawking. And I am not talking about those people. But there are people who do their thing, roleplay, but are just not incorporated because they aren't taken notice of. People huddle up in their little corners, focusing on only the small assortment of characters that they know, and not really expending beyond that. And from there on out, it goes into odd places, while excluding new faces at times. Or not even new faces, just faces who aren't considered apart of the group, so to speak. On higher population rounds, the issue isn't as evident, because the population is more fluent and mobile. But the deadhour crowd is most usually the same, unshifting group of players. I don't know, but I've felt this way at times. I've discussed this matters with a few others, or rather, they have raised this issue with me, so it's kinda just there. Any thoughts that we would have on this, as a community?

Okay. So, first, let me make a case of the following: any complaint that starts with the line of, "First off, let me just say: rekt," deserves to be closed, archived and payed no mind to. Unfortunately, this was not done. Secondly, the majority of this complaint is IC in nature. However, a certain bit of this does extend to OOC (the lack of potential IC retribution for the character's actions). As of right now, it is the responsibility of the players themselves to orchestrate this, but none of them are held accountable. Otherwise, there would be a long, long laundry-list of characters whose heads would fly, and an even longer list of people who are simply fired (small example version: Vittorio, Covert's Unathi HoS, April Reed, Phoebe, Jace Evans). However, again, because these issues fall into this odd gray area, OOC action is not taken until is completely flies over the line of, "Dumb, oh so very dumb." Thirdly, Pumpking and Covert need to figure out what to do with the absentminded accident that is the IC Incident Reports Board. Right now, it exists as a soft-feedback section (meaning, no one is required to act on it, and action should not be expected) for the players to base their character development off of. However, the way it's organized is completely confusing, and makes in unusable. Pump, you need to be able to compile additional documents and attachments if they pertain to the specific incident. Just so we stop it from overflowing into stupid-levels. But this is how things go: SNAFU - Situation Normal: All Fucked Up. Now, what are we doing to fix this situation, and ensure that shit like this doesn't happen again? Point one, I would move for this thread to be closed (final decision up to FFrances, if they agree or not). Executed in bad form, is the main issue I take with this. Anything executed in bad form is not something that should be provided attention to. Secondly, the player will be monitored to the extent anyone else is monitored. Then, we will have Pumpking take this feedback that he has gathered. And he will see about managing the situation with the IC Incident Reports Board. And until the Duty Officer program picks up, or something comparable, in terms of staff SoP, is established, it will remain a soft-feedback section. However, with hope going as they are, it'll take about a month before the Duty Officers are capable of conducting their business and the IC reprecussions will be enforced. And finally, let me say this: the staff actually had a word with Nursiekitty regarding this incident, and their character. And they were aware of the conduct, and the consequences that it would bring with it. We trust them, as we are forced to trust everyone else as of right now, to manage the situation to an acceptable standard. If this does not happen within an acceptable timespan (yes, given the circumstances and the conduct of others, a week or more, I would personally count, and others are free to disagree, an acceptable timespan), then please, feel free to raise the issue again. But I also ask that you, at that point, start raising similar issues in similar fashion. Or wait until we have a group capable.