Skull132

Okay, why would the corporation permit such an item to be carried onboard? It's clearly provokative in its being -- a facemask that resembles a human skull, and thus would be considered a source of potential conflict and misunderstanding. Further more, "...and does like to chase people around and scare them..." The corporation would rather rapidly deprive your character of such a thing, purely on the basis of it being used for shenanigans that lower productivity and can be considered "childish." The actions of its employees reflect on the corporation, keep that in mind. Not trying to rag, but the other full-face-cover thing has a reasonable explanation towards why they would need it.

A fun thought to entertain. But no. Not for security, not at round start, anywhere. I make a point out of not giving everyone everything they could ever dream. And here's why: it removes challenge, interaction and potential for conflict. Also, suspense. It removes so much suspense to just blatlantly see the culprit hiding in a firecloset, poised to strike you as you enter the door. It removes the need for you to be aware, to think, and to fear. It's also rather shit from the antag's PoV, you can't dodge lazy security anymore. Instead you'll get shredded by even lazier security. Please no.

You will be given that moment of forgiveness. The amount of time and effort you've placed into this community deserves, at the very least, this one thing. Regarding the rest of the post, I may or may not reply, depending on whether or not I manage to actually process my words into concise sentences and not horrendous blobs of wargarble. Please do not think less of me if I do not reply. Have a nice day, and a bright future.

Accepted by both the new and previous Lore Masters. Archiving.

Okay, let's review assess and move forwards with this. Because having new chemicals is actually quite a nice way to expand options, in my opinion. Hypnozine. Drugs like this exist in real life, so I would have no qualms with coding this in. I'll have a look at what I can do, and if I can make it a bit more advanced than just IC message spam. Albeit, I would not hold my breath for anything special, due to a few circumstances tied to administration. Oh, and it needs a new name, yes please. Deafenzine & Blinditoxin & Painimine. Building a chemical that very oh-so-specifically goes after the visual or auditory nerves is a rather complex undertaking. Theoretically... (Read as: I might be speaking out me arse) There may exist a way of configuring the chemicals to only interact with substances that are related to the eyes or hearing. However, I would propose the following: roll these two into a singular drug that fucks over the central nervous system. Low levels cause muscle pains, higher levels will start damaging vision, hearing, movement and coordination. Silincian. Not sure what to do with this one. I mean, a chemical which causes severe irritation of the slime-coated tissue it comes into contact with as it goes down your mouth? Hypozine. I like this one -- muscle convulsions. A lot of pain, and a lot of inability to move. Nightyscope & Illuminum. Umm, not a fan. The latter is just an odd concept, and despite there being illuminous compounds, without causing a fire (and a rapid dispersal of the chemical energy gained from the reaction) it wouldn't do much. Nightyscope, eh... Just don't like the premise, really. Thoughts? Shall I pass these and run them into dev, or are there any other suggestions?

We won't be. I'm going to lock this thread until the Head Admin gets around to making a call on this one.

Running plan is to have this coupled with the forever-in-the-works update that replaces the Detective and IAA with the Forensic Tech, Investigator/Detective and Internal Adviser. Basically, it should make the position more playable.

The one thing I will say. Despite sometimes being a big brash, our community, or individuals from our community, are not interested in being hostile. At the end of the day, they all just want to play a game, an din the progress, help others play the game. None of us mean anything bad, we just would like to help you. When we critique something, then it's with the end goal of perhaps helping you gain more insight into something. Specially when said input is provided by staff. Detachment is something nice to have, being able to step back and look at the arguments provided. Hopefully this helps, and we can work something out.

Okay, aggression. And coming from that, being abrasive. I noted that as something you do, on TS and ingame (Shayla). Now, characters are what they are, so I'm willing to sideline that (albeit she appears to be overly aggressive and over the top with no real good reason?), but on TS you came off as a rather aggressive individual. Okay, out of game communication should not factor in, except. If this is how you act, and will revert to when pressure is placed onto you, it'll become an issue. Catch my idea? Thoughts on this.

They'll be a thing, just put up in the announcements area, really.

Because school is starting at people are re-evaluating. Anyways, thank you for your time, have a great life! Or whatever that is.

The things that grant them access to this is buildmode. Devs need it to sort some things out, or to test others. Also, both of the people responsible have come forth, and I am certain, have learned from it. Follow-up will be conducted by myself, and this should not happen anymore.

Will be put into work.

Blue, I think he meant something like firedrills and so on.

Tempted to bin this. The ingame penalties for an empty stomach are enough, I can go a full 8 hour workshift with no food fine enough -- it'll suck, but a lack of sleep is a larger issue.

Objects already ingame, will be added to the spawn code.

Will be placed into production. The mug and duck are already completed, the diary will be easy enough to complete.

On the count of tactics employed: dividing up a disarmed security force when presented with an unrestrained hostile force that potentially outnumbers (HoS should know that military operations like that are never carried out by one man armies, and should assume multiple assailants, at least 2-4) them is a horrible tactical decision. You've lost the initiative, and you have no realistic means to regain it until you get access to weaponry. Whether or not you wish to secure the armoury is up to you, but you do not send out single-man patrols in this situation. That allows the unrestrained enemy to skirmish and kill them (I've executed such a tactic on SS13 myself, it's relatively brutal, even against a fully linked sec force). Actions should be to create a defensive centre that you can hold and play the reactive game until you, either, regain access to weaponry or assistance arrives. At that point you start looking into regaining the lost initiative. But as a very bottom line: never, never-ever dispatch troops out in single-man teams. The most basic division of any modern military force is a group of two soldiers, and it's like that for a reason. As for the complaint. The thing I am not displeased with is the fact that the dispatch of the CC Rep was initiated by the admin being attacked ingame. While I trust the staff member responsible for playing the role to have been impartial, it is an issue with transparency. Silver, take one thing away from this complaint: as a captain, you have more power than you believe. "I was being bombarded with issues" should not be an excuse, because as a captain, or frankly an head of staff, you have the authority to shut up just about anyone with an order issued. Managing, and ultimately controlling, the flow of communication is a very vital skill to learn as any leader. And I do hope that you learn it, and that we do not see another complaint against you. Locking and closing. No actions will be taken right now, but this will be taken into consideration should another complaint with valid grounds be filed.

I'll just let this serve as the closing remark. It is my hope that Jackboot will consider this as constructive input, and use it to revise and improve as necessary. Further action will be taken should it become necessary.

And as that, the complaint is closed. As further incidents come up, please do report them.

Short answer: no. Long answer: no one is going to get slam-dunked and lynched for a single mistake. For the period of time that Lonetophat has played on our server as a whitelisted Captain, he has shown a degree of competency very few others have in that position. And he fucked up once. Really? I'm sorry, I'm not going to remove someone who has shown a lot of what we ask from a whitelisted player because they decided to do something dumb/risque once. If this becomes repeat behaviour, and another report runs through, then action will be taken accordingly. Topic currently left open so FT could add any notes, or comments, or simply inform us that he is satisfied with the discussion here. Also, take note that LTH actually added a note of sexual harassment to his character's sec records.

Casper himself retired, however myself and Nightmare have reviewed the ban. And we came to the decision that we're good to lift it and provide you another chance. Enjoy the game. And if the unban didn't go through, PM me on the forums and I'll redo it.

Alrighty, the proposition set by FFrances is this: we unban you, but if you foul up again, we won't be inclined at all to accept any further unban appeals. You will be banned from security roles, valid for unban as you feel it necessary. The things that will get you removed again: Attitude towards players Attitude towards staff Repeating the charges that got you slated with this ban in the first place. So, how does that sound?

Not disabled. You need to go to the actual login menu to see it. It's a quirk for the style.

Quick note, please do not modify the prefixes of your own accord. They're there to help me keep track of things.