Skull132

Rules for specific IC behaviour like this are horrible. Literally please do not. If a specific player is constantly cocking up against this, IR them. If it just happens in general, pester CCIAA to run a publicity campaign around it or something. We should really implement ingame workshops on subjects like that :thinking:

Ban lifted. One final chance to abide by the rules given.

Just so we're aware, unlike most "This happened so long ago" appeals you actually have a history worth of 5 pages of notes associated with you. So I would like to see a bit of a more extrapolated response than, "I have learned the ways of the HRP," from you. Purely to ensure that you this time understand what went wrong. So basically, explain a bit more what exactly was the issue and why such behaviour is no bueno. Also, if you're willing, mind telling me what HRP server you adminned for? You don't have to, if you don't wish to.

I'll grab the pursuing of this for myself.

The issue with letting players close tickets is that players don't always know if the admins have something to add to a matter. This will result in duplicate tickets and the like, which will be more annoying than helpful for everyone involved.

Applicant put on trial, effective 23JUN2018.

Applicant put on trial, effective 23JUN2018.

There's not. At least, not one applying to any codebases other than Goon. Pacman and lately Lohikar have started complaining about it, but neither are active developers and as such, what they say is not policy.

Well, let's go lookings. https://kama.skullnet.me/index.php/s/YHrsF6Nt3mgkXgF That's 4 warnings over the span of about 6 months. And due to the way the system works, you can't really claim ignorance on them. So uh, yes, there were other problems outside of calling Delta a butthole.

Calling Delta a butthole was the tip of the iceberg, as far as the reasons for banning you from Discord go. What do you have to say about the rest of your behavior there? Understand that the main purpose of an appeal is to adequately convince staff of the fact that what got you banned won't be a problem no more. I'm not really seeing anything like that here.

And that's why we need this system. Antag whitelist applications will have a lot of feedback. [snip] With a antagonist whitelist it will allow people to give and take feedback when it comes to previous antagonist encounters so that antagonists and hopefully prevent antags from being bad in the future. Completely marginal returns when you consider the amount of effort that would be required for actually maintaining the system and reviewing the feedback. Again, the system could not be effectively maintained due to the amount of material the maintainers would have to go through regularly. This will either result in it being too slow, or with people getting approved too fast. It has to be automated in some fashion. And even better, if integrated into the game and immediately there, as opposed to on the forums. Another idea that was rolled around, by Arrow, was antag tokens. Specifically, say you're allotted n tokens for the week. Playing antag uses a token. At the end of each round, there's a vote. If people liked what you did and how you did it, you'd get the token back, allowing you to play antag more. It would create a positive feedback loop, hopefully, for good antag play. While not completely nuking the ability to play of the not-so-good ones. This can easily be accomplished with a more robust play time counter. Once again. To be clear. A manual whitelist would only waste time by virtue of it being ineffective. Antags are regular enough to the point where automation of their whitelisting will yield more effective results.

1. Have you read the wiki on traitor roles? 2. How would you rate your ability to roleplay as an antag? 3. Do you have experience as antag in the past? To pass for 1 you'd need to say yes and prove it. To pass for 2 you'd need to be honest and the feedback in the thread will reflect it. To pass for 3 you'd need to be honest and have other people prove it. All of these questions would be bullshitted through with absolute ease. In fact. Any static interview is shit. The entire point of an interview as a tool of competency assessment is to drill into your head. And the only way you can do that is with live questioning. Here's one major issue. High throughput manual whitelisting is oxymoronic. In order for whitelists to work, you need some ability to actually gauge the applicants. This requires time per whitelist. Time to read the application, to assess the applicant. What use is a whitelist if the few managers are swarmed with a metric ass of requests? Which they will be: the ability to play antagonist is very integral to the SS13 experience. There's a high need for them. And any whitelist system that's placed to oversee that need, if operated manually, will fail. As far as whitelist systems go, consider that the lower the throughput, the more effective they are. Mod apps -- lowest throughput, most time per applicant, best consistency. Species apps, average throughput with average time per applicant, not too many complaints normally. Command whitelist applications, possibly the highest throughput, also the most complaints. I would personally say that the command whitelist and species applications are the highest throughput whitelist systems we should allow, with anything beyond that being impractical in not serving its purpose. It will literally just end up with everyone who knows how to eloquently phrase themselves getting it. And then the status quo not really changing, because this is not how you filter for this kinda stuff. So if any "whitelist" for antags is to ever be considered, it should be automated. Anything else is impractical and unfit for purpose, as explained above. One idea would be to refactor the very lax time based system we have atm (it literally just counts days since you first connected) to count your play time. Which can be done with a bit of heuristics applied. It'd at least ensure a basic familiarity with the game and server environment before stepping off into antag wonderland. And at the end of the day, you're still going to have to face the facts that: Banning on first offence does not happen. Aurora's moderation, since its inception, has had a pseudo policy of warnings leading up to harsh bans. That is to say, we give people the benefit of the doubt the first time, and expect them to get better. Second, third, fourth case at most would lead to a ban. But you have to consider, this is for an individual, so for all you know, you might be getting annoyed by multiple different people, all getting their first warning. There was supposed to be a second point but I forgot. However, since I started a list, I might as well pad it out.

> Sleep 7 hours > Work for another 8 > Everyone shitposts a developer's application okay.jpg Where do I even begin. Okay, first, let me make it clear that I've been on Lohikar's discord since it was created, and thus have followed most of the shenanigans there. And there are a few points I would like to present. First and foremost, I have very rarely observed him speak ill of specific community members. And in the cases that has happened, it's usually been from your list of usual suspects, eg Delta. I am certain that most folks who have been with the community for long enough can draw their own conclusions from this. Some thought should also be taken to figure out how much of it is just vexation. As, consider, I can not recount major instances where Burger has done actual work in a manner which is vindictive. And he has yielded to feedback, among other things. Though, I will thoroughly acknowledge the points brought up by [mention]MoondancerPony[/mention] in the addendum to his post. I think that's one of the most reasonable responses in this thread, as a matter of fact. And perhaps more than one person from here should consider it. Ultimately, it should be taken into consideration that the relationship between a community and its staff (coder, admeme, CCIAA; doesn't matter) is symbiotic. Arguments by Pacman and Delta here have described parasitic relationships of various forms, but the truth is completely the opposite. Now, here are my plans on what to do with this app. Already spoken to the devs and Burger, we will be inducting him into a month or two of trial. The objective will be to see how he handles himself wearing boi green. Basically in vain of what UM wrote. (Wtf, people have written up most of the stuff I wanted to say already.) Ultimately I am certain that, if needed, we are able to overcome what needs to be overcome. And if not, then Burger gets to hang around as a contributor and so forth. The trial induction will happen over the course of this week.

Righty, let's post here as well. First, re: retrofuturism. I do not know where this term came from, but this is pretty much the first time I've heard of it. The "retrofuture" aesthetic is an old Goon one, something which was never fully rooted out. Further, as you yourself pointed out, it's something we've deliberately gone against for the longest time. Recorders, PDAs, IDs, computers. Probably even more stuff that I can't think of at the moment. Point being, we've been running away from that aesthetic for years now. So I fail to see how this is going against the style and direction of the server, considering both have been moving away from the retro aspect for literally years now. Second, I would debate that the noir is not entirely affected by the changes. You lose the 1980s aesthetic, but nothing's stopping you from playing your character off as noir. I don't think we'll ever see the end of the hard boiled detective that smokes 5 cigarettes every 5 minutes. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Noir in le future can be done, and I would much rather have future noir than 1980s noir. As I mentioned in the PR, the exact way we go about achieving this is probably up for change a bit next cycle as well, but that's the general intent.

[mention]AnonyLocke[/mention] my apologies, this appeal slipped by unnoticed. In general, you don't have notes of major issues, so I'm just gonna lift the ban. If you have trouble connecting, please leave a reply here or PM me. I'll be locking and archiving the thread in a day or two.

Oke, well, this has sat for a bit. I'll pester the developers to provide concrete input over the next few days. My general opinions at the moment are a :+1: though. Burger is active and has a drive, which is needed. Also writes decentcode. There have been minor issues in the past with him, but I hope we can overcome them and that they won't pop up again.

Calling it arbitrary is invalid. From my understanding of asking Alberyk, NT is officially favouring a racist faction of the cats. Which means, in order to save face, they'd be more inclined to enforce racial divides when possible and when it doesn't cause too much havoc. Since enforcing kitty rights in Tau Ceti is already half a meme, it makes sense that they [NT] can get away with letting subtle racism seep in by stone-walling non-favoured race promotions. The restriction isn't arbitrary because it has a grounding in something which should be tangible ingame: the lore. No roleplay is lessened from this change. In the same way that no roleplay is added by removing/not implementing these restrictions. The claim itself is half-ridiculous,

To be fair, [mention]Scheveningen[/mention], an application does not have to be accepted in full or directly. Even if the accepted, the lore developers will almost certainly make modifications to the content to better fit their vision and their work. This is, even without the inquisition naming shenanigans. So if the issue of the name remains, welp, it'll just the changed if the rest of the application is deemed as worth the investment to implement. Now, as for the actual discussion, it seems a wee bit silly to hinge on a single name. As long as le inquisition is not made the mainstay of the new roman church or whatever, then it's going to be very hard to meme. Dominia was meme-d because the entire focal point of the nation is its quite barbaric nature. A similar thing happened with the ECF, where only a few key notes were emphasized in the actual gameplay. What's more likely to get meme-d in general with this application is the power and influence allotted to the church. In the form of preachers, inquisitors truth-seekers, whatever. Consider that this is a dystopian age of mega-corporations, where unimaginable wealth makes human lives worthless in comparison. How exactly does a church maintain its power and status in an age like that; how dirty are its hands. Etcetera.

On the flip side. "Implement a specific verb for the very specific use-case of this," is relatively unintuitive. A verb, specifically for this, is a really hamfisted solution. You could, for example, modify the text that happens when you shake someone who's resisting and make that interrupt the act. Something intuitive, that doesn't require new controls.

So, what, rather than placing rightful blame on people not doing as the rules tell them to and telling yourself, as part of the administration, "We can escalate more seriously against these people", you claim the rule is broken because nobody's following it/it's not enforced consistently enough? This doesn't really seem consistent with your previous philosophy on how you treat policy. You're arguing administrators should be hands-off anytime an antagonist at any point of the round decides to permanently sabotage telecommunications, right? Or are you just stating personal perspective without taking a side on the issue? I'm really confused as to where you're coming from here. wat. Okay, first, it's not a matter of people not following the rules and me not wanting to enforce the rule in question. It's a matter of, this rule being present resulting in the action never being undertaken not because there was no valid reason for it, but because people loathe confrontation, and would rather miss their opportunity than ask. A similar thing applies to the suicide rule, and is the exact reason why the rule was changed to no longer require people explicitly asking for permission to suicide. In fact, our experience with both rules is why the suicide rule was loosened: no one wants to bother asking, so no one asks, so you lose out on some avenues of roleplay which would otherwise take place. There are also logic issues involved, eg. is an admin really involved with antagonists enough to actually be informed enough to make a call? Which is why I would rather leave things as they are: all antagonist actions are reviewed after the fact, and punishment applied retroactively. This is the default attitude we have towards all rules, and I see no reason to add an exception for TComms.

Local server host does not recall that their own server has rules that require people to ask permission before sabotaging the engine, releasing a singularity or bombing the shuttle. Oh, and the malf AI/anyone else is not allowed to cancel a crew transfer through IC means, despite for the former it is most certainly mechanically possible and I'm only half sure if it is for the latter. Where do you think I got the basis of my claim from? From my experience with dealing with people around this issue. I'm fully aware of the exceptions involved, have enforced them as I was actively working as an administrator. That doesn't mean that it's good policy and it doesn't mean that it should be expanded to include TComms.

What is this thread. Can someone explain to me why removing communications works to stifle RP? Or rather, how it does so. At worst, all it does is mean you get to wander around the station alone, or continue sitting behind your desk because you're too disinterested to give a damn. But realistically communications suddenly going down for a prolonged period of time would be something your character would want to respond to. Ergo, it serves as a platform to create roleplay. Whether or not you see to grasp said roleplay is somewhat irrelevant. Further, putting it on requiring admin approval would basically be the same as banning it. As no one ever asks for permission on those things and it's a relatively bad way to handle administration. What's requested in the OP, is already a given with the rules we have in place. If you destroy TComms because someone pissed in your cornflakes, you're getting warned or banned. If you consistently destroy TComms for the keks, you're probably getting warned (there's precedence for this). Adding explicit mentions of X, Y, and Z to the rules is something which should be done extremely sparring, usually only in cases requiring absolute clarity. This is already covered by a myriad of rules and we would not gain anything from adding an explicit mention.

If done properly. It'd only require a sprite or two per ingredient and a few sprites per base. Then you do layer magic and colour magic procedurally.

For the sake of clarity. If you want to be a complete pedant about it, then you should be discussing the proposed idea and its implications/effects. Nothing else.

A good portion of it ye. Not all of it, though.