Skull132

Security would be around to shut down shit regardless. Peace wiz? Need to guard that intruder. Antag with benign objectives? Probably still broke a reg. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. As for the pylons, Garn could have temporarily deleted them had he felt like it was warranted.

Attempts at communication, appeasement, inspection could have been made. Instead of letting sec and engineering attack it. Both eventualities are fine, though.

 I would, because, 'as per my intentions', I said: 'anything like giving two people traitor with benign objectives that cause interaction with crew would have been fine' Had they had those objectives, and facilitated interesting roleplay for those who chose to interact with them, then sure. That'd be grand. I messed up a phrase there. But regardless, this: "for those who chose to interact with them," is not really how the game works. What point is there in adding an antag or an actor, even with benign objectives, if people are free to ignore them? What point is there to even being such an antag/actor? The list roughly begins with communication and ends wherever. Though the round did eventually evolve a bit once the pylons were taken out, and people actually got into the antechamber.

As already noted, my bar for "anything major" is anything that pursues the station actively. This was not it, and it was quite contained. The crew had the option of interacting with the forces in the bar in other capacity. How the situation was approached was largely left up to the crew. Peacewiz would have been as eventful as this event, minus the fact that one wouldn't hurt you while the other could and did. Of note is also the fact that "My intentions this round were overwritten by x events!" is not a valid cause for complaint, unless done in horrible taste by an admin (adminbus). Any roleplay game like this is about collaborative story telling, which means you have to be open to events outside of your control coming to fuck up your day and your intentions. Had he made a traitor or two, as per your intentions, would you also have lodged a complaint if said traitors would have managed to pull off something grand? Like blow a chunk of the station out into space or create a murder mystery plot?

Then your point about air pressure getting "absolutely fucked" is either invalid, or unintended by Garn. Which makes it largely irrelevant, IMO. The rest of your complaint is subject to individual interpretation of what a "small" event is. Considering that it wasn't anything major that aggressively saught out the station or some such, I would agree with Garn's decision that this is a smol event. One minor point remains, though, this: It has yet to be explained how any of this is "pretty shitty for a HRP server" and whether this breaks any rules or guidelines. Would you be able to do so?

Yes. Anyways, it's usually stable for about 20 hours out of the day now. If you're getting a connection failed error, just try again a few times, it'll eventually let you through.

Having both is horribly excessive. Further, an antique looking laser gun is a lot more aesthetic than a normal looking saber, specially considering our setting. A sword is literally just taking an old tradition and putting it into the game, with no aesthetic of our setting added on. (So I prefer the gun, obviously. Or at least a fucking laser saber. You yourself wanted hard light.)

Gonna correct you on this one. Air pressure got fucked because engineers decided to tear a hole into the side of the station using an emitter. Literally saw it happen meself. While security was assailing the subject initially, the HoP was standing right next to them in her dress. Which is sort of hard to do without atmosphere. Going to also have to debate you on this one. The event was small in that no interaction was urgently forced upon the crew. The "hostile" forces were not outwardly aggressive, perhaps until the crew tried to do shit (assault it) and Garn gained some followers. (I stopped tracking towards the latter end of the round, but up until he had gained 2 followers, he was literally just sitting in his hole.) Of further note is the fact that "small" is literally subjective. And in the grand scheme of things, what Garn did was relatively small. I also do not see what's shitty about this event for an HRP server? You were presented with a scenario. You had no guidelines on how to solve the matter, all options were open to you. For most of the round though, the crew simply attempted to assail the thing. Sooo I dunno, what would have made it a good event for HRP?

The colour scheme is horribly close to that of the normal engineering voidsuit. The only tangible difference is that yours is not shaded softly. So uh, you're definitely going to need to another colour to it, for the sake of differentiation. You also need to apply proper shading: what's proposed is largely a no-go, see other suits for reference.

Mirrors in question deactivated. Ban appeal resolved.

Your IP strayed into a fun range. Mirrors lifted, you should be good to join again.

I have a really bad idea. Split the HoP into two roles. One is the civilian staff chief, who is responsible for cargo and service; and the other the human resources officer, who is more akin to the ID granting and IAA role.

Rules updated as described, as per all heads of staff agreeing to it. Marking complaint as resolved.

This conversation is leaning into stupid speculation in an attempt to smear and undermine. That's where the line gets drawn. If you've said your point, then disengage. The intent of the server leadership has been said a few pages back, and it remains unchanged. Just give us a bit of time to figure out the exact specifics of how we want to experiment with this, and we'll see what comes of it.

Legitimate night vision is troublesome with mobs, yes. It runs the risk of enabling hacking, powergaming, or exploitation. Though those risks can be mitigated a little. Though it's been a while since I've investigated the specifics and some of this looks fine.

We're relatively average, all things considered. Our whitelists process is easy and straight forward, unless you're a complete idiot. And we have a clear standard for what gets whitelisted (heads of staff, major species and sub species). I have no idea where you got the "ever expanding" bit from, since the only whitelists added since the creation of this server have been for new major species.

I might be a bit exhausted, so I'll leave this at a, "Sure, whatever". Anyways, as outlined, the rule could do with rewording, as the wording I used is its application in practice. And the ultimate goal of it, to inform you of the fact that we may ban you for using any or specific VPNs, proxies, etcetera, without any further elaboration required. De facto, Garn's conduct is in line with the freedoms extended to most of the playerbase, minus those who've banned for abusing this freedom.

The rule could probably use a bit of a rewording. We do have bans and entry denials logged purely off of people using specific commercial VPNs or other forms of proxy. However, this is usually in cases where we've identified a specific provider's subnet as being abused and range-ban them. So the rule should perhaps still exist, but be reworded instead: Also, side-note: This, too, is covered in the rules: Even if the rule regarding VPNs got removed, then, in your specific case, an attempt to hide your identity may well result in a logging of a multikey attempt and then a ban.

No it's not. Treating it as a simulation will lead you down the road of dwarf fortress et al. Well, lead you down further I guess. Though I will suppose that keeping a job entirely "entry-level" is also not a good way to do this. What you actually want is depth. The core concepts of a mechanic should be easy to grasp, but they should expand to really fun and interesting fuckery, combinations, etcetera. If you make it too much of a simulation, then you'll head down the path of surgery: just following the wiki, doing wrote actions that are not compelling at all, since there's nothing to explore.

Going to shoot you for this. Rubber ducky isn't a good example of why teaching is beneficial to you. Rubber ducky is highly situational (you must actually be stuck on the issue you are attempting to solve), and it benefits greatly from the participant actually being aware of the work (say, being another programmer). This is because, if the act of explanation itself doesn't help, you still have a competent colleague to hold a dialogue with over the issue and hopefully solve the issue. The actual reasons of why teaching is beneficial to your knowledge of a subject are far more grand. A good few examples are the various different perspectives teaching will provide for an issue, due to the fact that not everyone views the world in the same way, and due to your continued exercise in distilling the issues you're attempting to teach down to their very essence. Both of which will help your understanding of the given subject immensly, and will allow you to analyze it further in more advanced work.

I had a horribly long point based topic here, but it's become a bit meh. A lot of the points that I would have echoed there I have already stated in my earlier posts. Specifically ones that address: why a change in this vain might be positive and is necessary: to limit the control security has over antagonists, to allow antagonists more ground to do stuff on; how security even has this control: the ability for security, likely a team of 3 deployment ready officers on average, with a total of 7 deployment capable slots, is able to box in any antagonist in an already extremely advantageous setting (the station), unless the antagonist shapes their core gameplay around addressing the threat of security; and what can be done to lessen it: remove the ability for coordination is one way, extremely nerfing Security's presence and manpower is another, and continuously buffing antags is a third. So instead, I want to address one key point remaining. Yes, hi, the entire point of these changes is to address and change a relatively core element of station gameplay. Or the round flow, I guess you could say. I saw quite a few notes about this intentionally fucking with balance, with the role of security in a round, and with the game flow. That is the point, because, as it stands, Security's presence and role in a round is a little too overarching, in terms of the control they can assert over game play. So diluting that control is a way to see about bringing change to gameplay, and we will attempt to make it an ultimately positive change for everyone. As long as they are willing to accept new gameplay flow. Now, allow me to also allude to what the server leadership is thinking in terms of handling this PR. First, let me be clear, as far as current discussion goes, we are very interested in testing this out. How specifically this will work will be discussed over the next week or so, as there are a few things to sort out evident from both this thread and from the technical aspect of how to best keep this PR live for a period longer than a few rounds (which is how regular test-merges like this go). So stay tuned for that. Further, we absolutely recognize the gravity of this change, and we will be subjecting it to clear feedback and iterations. Specifically, at present we are planning on concrete feedback threads on iterations and most likely polls. Polls can be filtered per job, so we can also categorize feedback into columns of, "Regular Joe, Regular Antag Bob, Regular Security Frank", to ensure that we get a good overview per affected party as well. And even if these changes end up not being implemented, it is my hope that we can learn from this experiment and apply what has been learned in another fashion.

Oh but there are downsides. First, let me preface this with stating that everything I said applies to both staff and the players -- the community as a whole. Now, let's rewind a couple of years to, I think, 2015. When FFrances was Head Admin. I have no clue whether or not you were around at the time, but FFrances' tenure can be summarized as strict and professional. While it did not cause issues initially, in fact, FFrances' tenure was largely positive while it lasted, its end revealed a few interesting things. Staff had become cold, and communication between them and the player base required a bit of patching up afterwards. Certain roleplay standards also needed to be relaxed. Now note that no where am I saying that staff shouldn't be professional, I am saying that they should remain be able to remain usually at ease when interacting and communicating with the player base. Chasing decorum for the sake of decorum is a good way to burn staff out. From the player's perspective, a similar point applies. First, if we start expecting professional behaviour out of staff, then the same should largely be expected out of the playerbase. This will result in the players getting burned out and exhausted from roughly the same issues. It will also severely damage the communication between the player base and the staff, since the players will tend to think twice about being open about their opinion in a setting like that. This will lead to a heightened issue of cliques forming, and more outbursts over trivial things which could have easily been communicated otherwise. To say that it is not, is to tell a lie. You will find that the plank you are required to walk will be shorter if we can determine that you are purposefully malicious, versus having a bad day. This is not to say that having a bad day every day and taking it out on members of the community here doesn't culminate in a bannu, but circumstances and history are certainly taken into consideration while enforcing the rules. Once again, I will emphasize: my post did not address the conduct of staff. It addressed the expected conduct of any member of this community, were the policies you specified applied. Where you saw me acting in a fashion that is apologetic is beyond me. Where you saw me address means by which staff are held accountable for their actions is also beyond me, since I did barely touch the matter of actually enforcing policy, instead I extrapolated on what the proposed policy would bring with it. I will also reemphasize my points against this: the policy proposed, if applied in blanket, broad, or otherwise mindless form, will result in both staff and members of the community burning out, simply because they are unable to let loose and relax. I will add, that, where necessary, policy along this lines is already in effect. To a degree which the staff believe to be reasonable at present. Summa summarum, it is my belief, as based on previous experiences and knowledge assertained while doing this whole community management deal for a bit now, that our policy is a good enough mix of shit posting and on topic feedback. If you do actually want to discuss enforcement, then let us. As I commented earlier in the administrator chat, we, as a community, have been down a similar road before. The road of, "How do we get people to report violations to us." The first step would be to ensure that the means of communicating the rule violations are clear. In the case of Discord, this is probably lacking. So, as discussed with Garn in this thread, changes are being put in place to clarify this. The second step is ensuring that people see enough necessary action being taken. At the time, this was done by implementing the policy that the person adminhelping is informed of how a manner was resolved or why it was dismissed. Worst case scenario, the person files a staff complaint, finds out that their vision does not match that of the server's leadership, and either accepts that or leaves. Suppose, I would rephrase the issue into one of enforcement, instead of one of policy. ?

Word policing should be an immediate no. The application of policy based on the vocabulary used is not effective, and will only serve to deal with the aesthetics of communication, while still leaving the a relatively rotten core. Further, it tends to devolve into a neat little puppet show, the point of which is to usually demonstrate that, "Hey, look, we're actively moderating this!" while letting the discussion still descend into meaningless attacks, just using the vocabulary that the enforces green lit. I will hold that no one in this community has been banned simply for using a specific word; but rather, all bans over using the word, nigger, say for example, are over a more general context of racism and stereotyping. The latter of which are legitimate issues of behaviour and conduct, while the former is not necessarily indicative of anything, depending on the context. As for value judgement. What Loren suggests would work, if we were a small or a professional community. We really are not. We're a group of dudes and dudettes, who are playing a game, contributing their passion and effort into it to varying degrees. Situations will get charged. People will allow emotion into their speech. If people are not allowed to live themselves out, as the saying in Estonian goes, then they will burn out and leave. This is not to say that constantly getting emotional is okay or healthy, nor is this to say that you can just call something stupid and have it conclude your opinion. Areas specific to feedback within this community have rules regarding the requirements for feedback, and those rules generally include the point of, "Feedback must be constructive." Not only does it exclude feedback that is limited to, "This is a good/bad/shit/amazing/whatever idea," it usually means that if you call something stupid, you must reason why. And we largely expect that members of this community, to at least a certain degree, are able to detach themselves from their ideas and can take criticism in that vain into consideration. So, while it may sound like a meme, this is a two-way road. Obviously there exist edge cases, like constantly just exuding strongly worded opinions or whatever else, but with proper reporting, these will eventually culminate into a mountain of logs that the staff will take into consideration and act on. It may be slow, but hey, there it is. And if it isn't there, player complaint or staff complaint, go. And also make note that you have the capacity to block people, both on the forums and on Discord. Use it, if you find the way someone expresses their opinion to be personally disturbing to you, but you disagree with server staff's judgement on the matter. As for the very original topic. I was about to post what Garn posted initially. Very little of what goes on in Discord gets reported directly. This might change if we make reporting easier and less confrontational. Or we just have to crack down on dudes not reporting issues. I have thought about coding an adminhelp feature to the bot, and I can probably do so over the weekend, though it'll require a bit of thought. Specifically, where would you detail the actual ahelped issue: publicly, with the message being removed ASAP, or over PMs, or how?

Why is this "a hole"? Roughly because it's horribly limiting in terms of the external factors that you can apply. Even with looser restrictions on what you can roleplay, you'll still be an average Billy-Bob-Joe working at NT. Having people who are given more latitude to do shit, like say Vox refugees for a round, or something else, might be pretty neat for new roleplay arcs. Ones that are not necessarily security focused, either, since you could involve things like mysterious diseases, ayylmaos, or simply giving people food.

Rivarly between the newborn and old vampire is partly the point. Or rather, the chance for it. This is also partly why a new vampire begins frenzied, to make the old vampire actually consider fucking off after creating his spawn. Further, vampires are designed to be lone hunters, not team players. They literally have no abilities which allow for direct synergy, and this is by design. I would rather not make this into another generic team based conversion game mode. To provide context, since the first claim is off. A lot of this is based off of the World of Darkness PnP game series. At least ability content, the general look and feel of the vampires. Primarily because I consider said series a very good modern re-contextualization of the myth of vampirism. In our interpretation of this, vampirism is a slow poisoning of the Veil. When the Cult are direct subjects and slaves of Nar'Sie, vampires are a side-effect. Thus, free agents. There were/are expansion plans based off of this, like making the cult able to create vampire agents by subjecting randos to the Veil's presence. But unless someone wants to pick this up, it's on my "Do later" list. With that context said. Making embracing actually a thing off the bat isn't necessarily a bad idea. And it would expand the things a vampire could do. However, at that point it would also be nice to implement more vampire-on-vampire interactive powers. Diablier is a completely unexplored area, and the idea of generation stealing; and otherwise, if you have more vamps, you want them to be able to do stuff to one another. I say, "To one another," because again, I would rather this not become a team based conversion game mode: if you observe /tg/, then a prolifilation of those is not a positive thing!