Skull132

The rule in question is primarily to discourage argumentative conduct. Typically this includes pestering the admin staff after they've told you to stop and move on. Appeals, outside of special circumstance, are obviously not covered by this. As appealing is not negative conduct.

The unfortunate thing is that this is nearly impossible. For a curing mechanic, I did slowly start thinking of having traumas be associated with certain words and situations. And then allowing the psychiatrist to monitor the patient's reaction as he goes through possible links. Like, let's say you gain a trauma from oxygen deprivation. At the moment you gain it, it does a quick scan of your character and retains oxygen damage and lung damage as a "trigger". You'd have the trauma as normal, but whenever events associated with the trigger arise, the trauma would get momentarily worse/other effects would arise. If we could give the psychiatrist ways to monitor this, and then uh, somehow cure it. Then idk it'd be neat. But note how I'm missing the "cure" bit. And even without that, what I described is a relatively complex system. [mention]Sytic[/mention] To answer your question. With traumas being mechanical in nature now, it does not make sense to keep Psychiatrist as a "purely RP" role. They need an ability to cure the traumas somehow, point one. Point two, the presence of these mechanics is not somehow subtracting from the roleplay of being a psychiatrist. It's simply giving a mechanical core to the role, around which you can do literally whatever type of roleplay you want. As for the nature of the mechanics. I do agree that some of the mechanics are questionable. But there's a hitch with thinking up scientific ones. The problem is that traumas, in reality, do require soft power. However, as illustrated above, coding soft power is literally impossible. So at some point, you need to have a magical, mechanical switch which deletes the trauma for you. It's just a matter of figuring out where to bury said switch, and how. If you've got detailed ideas, I'd be more than open to listening to them.

Just for clarity. Admins do not know the recipes. The global list of recipes is too long for view-variables to display.

What a loaded thread. SINCE THIS THREAD IS FUCKING BLOOMING, LET ME PLACE A RESTRICTION ON WHAT'S TO BE DISCUSSED. Discuss the suggestion and its impact only. Any discussion outside of that is about to get fucking cropped. This includes discussion about the alchemical nature of the chemicals. What the chems do is not a topic for discussion here. I'll write one spoiler, regarding the entire concept of the secret chems, which we're apparently discussing here for some reason. Now, regarding the actual fucking thread. To summarize my opinion up front, this is death by compromise. Randomization is absoloutely not fit for purpose here. Randomization is a gate mechanic. The algorithm can be learned, memorized, optimized. After which it's just a chore. This is somewhat fitting (though not the ideal solution) to gameplay mechanics which are meant to be used every round. Like genetics: genetics was a dedicated job, as such, you wouldn't put up a giant wall on the subject. Instead, you'd put up a bump which would slow down new comers, but allow the old timers to get right to work. Secret chemicals are not equitable to genetics. They are not a primary gameplay mechanic, they are meant to be (and are, by the nature of what the chemicals do) a niche piece of the gameplay. Thus, the gate to actually use them is quite large. It's meant to be a bit of a reward, if you will. One of those things you spend a few hours working away on in the lab, with hopes of eventually getting it right. Like trying to figure out the most optimal ration of plasma to air in a tank-transfer valve. (Ayy, that's another one of those secrets which exists but no one knows about unless they've paid attention.) However, what you're proposing as the second part of the equation is something I'd be actually in support of. As stated in my previous spoiler, I think we would benefit from making the chemicals a bit more visible ingame. Make people go, "Huh. Da fuck is this." And adding a machine which, through destructive analysis (meaning the chemical is used up), would give you a hint at how to create the chemical. This would make the entire experience a bit more engaging and a bit less about bashing your face against the wall. It would also introduce an interesting trade of, "Do I want to feed this to my colleague, or shove it into the machine?" So ye, my thoughts.

I suppose we can write up a mechanical guide to it for the Github wiki.

Actually, what happens is the heads all vote on it, and then the prisoner has the result happen. They have little say in the matter, despite being a very relevant party to it. oh boi i sure love this misconception. You are playing in an interactive environment where decisions made by others will affect your character. You are not required to have a direct say in those decisions. This is the entire point of this game. What's more, not having a say in such a decision does not mean that there's no roleplay involved. Inevitability and things outside of your control can be fantastic sources of roleplay.

That's not really how this works. We will "make up for this" by being better prepared next time. Trading like this is not a good way to manage anything past a personal relationship. The trouble with an Eridani PSec would be that, if implemented in a meaningful fashion, where they get to hold their own, they'd start causing issues in the chain of command and for CCIAA in terms of how to manage the IRs that get submitted over them. On the other hand, if implemented in a fashion that they're functionally equivalent to security officers, then you'd have to explain what they even add. You could just play a security officer who's subcontracted from Eridani and call it a day. We've considered implementing small, sub-departments as outside contracts. That level of separation would be more easily managed, as opposed to splitting an existing department.

oh hey, it's actually hanging on by a thread of abandon. Well. I'm gonna do this: merge this thread with that one, vote for dismissal, and enact the one week grace period.

I'm going to poke my nose in on this front. Gathering arbitrary data about the success of objectives was not the goal of this event. We found this out over the 2 - 3 antag contests that we ran that such arbitrary gather of information does not lead to the best decisions or outcomes. The faxes were there as roleplay prompts. Literally that. Anywhosers. In general, I concur that more planning could have been done on the actual event side of things. Same for public and staff information. Though I will say: none of the staff really knew what to expect. The event was reviewed and authorized by all involved departments. Head Admins told me it was fine. CCIAA told me it was fine. None of us just knew what kind of shenanigans to expect from the playerbase. (Turns out: we can't really trust people to read the lore based on an announcement thread.) At present, all staff are compiling an internal SOP/checklist for future events like this, based on what was observed and experienced during this. So future events of this nature, and perhaps of related nature, would be executed better.

Wasn't this rejected? The only thing it'd do is be an amazing buff to security. It wouldn't resolve the core issue, because no sound is transmitted with cameras, ergo, how do you know someone's power tripping?And it wouldn't help with team management because boi you ain't got time to be staring at a camera when shit hits the fan. The team's not large enough for that.

Lemme be curious for but ein moment. We don't have warnings for our other content (most specifically gore, which can upset the weak nerved ones; but I'm sure we can come up with something else as well). Why the sudden request for them. What goal does it satisfy. All of this is pretty standard stuff for video games, something which the consumer should arguably be already aware of. Nor do we openly broadcast ourselves as straying from the commonly present tropes. In my honest to God opinion, such warnings would have an almost null effect on anything. (And please don't take this as a reason for me not implementing this, I've yet to make up my mind. It's ultimately trivial anyways, as far as coding goes. I'm just really curious as to why people suddenly started caring about this one specific thing out of a myriad of equivalent thing.) And now for something completely detached: lmao wat. If we find a feature which fits purpose, isn't obnoxious, and happens to be a potential trigger for epilepsy. Then we absoloutely should add it. Your ass is trying to grand-stand while making an empty statement about potentially obnoxious gameplay features.

Application withdrawn. You are free to apply as you please. Locking and archiving.

Application was withdrawn in early January. PoZe is free to apply whenever he feels like it. Locking and archiving.

On top of this, there are only negatives to be gained. What is the ultimate goal of playing here? Or of playing SS13? To be engaged and to enjoy your time. This suggestion goes exactly counter, as it removes engagement from the situation and the game. This system would provide incentive for you to just leave and do something else. Death is cheap, as you yourself have stated. This means that you can die really quickly, easily, and, at times, with absoloutely no direct control over it. Because of this, the consequences for death should be minimal. The cheapness of death, and the lack of consequence to the player should go hand in hand. +1 dismissal vote.

:clapping: we :clapping: need :clapping: events :clapping: around :clapping: this :clapping:

That is literally what this suggestion is, unless you mean setting some other colours. It is technically infeasible. As I stated before.

Comm colors are handled server side, they do not consider individual clients. At present, this is not feasible.

[mention]Elohi Adanvdo[/mention] none of that's possible. Which flash overlay is used is somewhat easy due to the way it's applied, but literally anything else. Explosions, gun fire, evacuation and fire alarms, is very difficult if not impossible to make safe. The bottom line is, this game is not and cannot be made safe for severe epileptics.

Is that seriously an issue? The sprite is 64x64 nominally. I can get behind the bright flash stuff but really? The entire point of that suit is to be flashy and rainbow-y. Not trying to be condescending here, and maybe I am misinformed on the severity of the issue, but I'm failing to fathom how something so relatively small could cause epilepsy unless you have a really severe case. At which point, I do not believe you should be playing SS13.

wat. I'm kinda confused. Point one, I never implied you dislike Coalf. Read my posts. I said, and let me quote myself, "You have an issue with [his] criticism and conduct [around that criticism]." That is comparable to, "[ I have an issue with] just what he says." So there really is no misunderstanding here on this part, I assure you. And you can see for yourself as well. I will elaborate further by saying that I assume no malice, which hating someone is, until proven otherwise. As for the rest. Apparently Coalf has apologized a few times over specific incidents. And did attempt to speak to you about this complaint in private. I suppose he could say a final sorry here as well, but I'll leave that GarnAbo and Coalf to decide on how they want to act. Outside of that, like, figure out what the purpose of this complaint is. Because you're now also speaking against yourself: "25% of the intention of this thread is to see what standards the admins are held at and if there is no issue then I suppose I will support that decision." This thread will be made note of for future reference regardless of what explicitly is done about it, and I hope that this jabbing doesn't repeat itself. I guess if we can all agree to not do the jabby bits over discord, we'll be good?

Delta has a slight point in that, our players visit le reddit. And they will discuss and respond to what's posted on reddit. Ergo, if you make a post, it can be brought up for discussion. It is your business not to take it personally for as long as the discussion isn't made personal. (Something which Coalf kinda voided in that one example, buuuuut Abo will probably get to that.) Though saying you contribute to drama is dumb, [mention]Scheveningen[/mention], because one could say that you're contributing way more to drama by being the peanut gallery for this thread. Anyways. I kinda wanted to address this bit in specific. And I'll preface this with stating that GarnAbo have final call on this, as handling administrative punishment is their call. But, the thing you have to note is. At the moment, the best that could probably be done is a wrist slap given to Coalf. There's absoloutely not enough evidence to do anything else, nor the precedence for it. We usually expect our staff to learn from their mistakes and shortcomings. However. I have literally spoken to both of you over private channels. And I know that you both have a problem with each other. Coalf has an issue with the way you've implemented some features and your conduct around feedback, you have an issue with criticism and conduct. Both are more-or-less valid to a similar degree. Though yes I suppose that Coalf's handling of the issue could be more civil, but the issue would still be there. So the more positive outcome is for you two to find common ground and to figure out how to better get along and communicate with one another. As that would hopefully leave both of you off on a more constructive note and avoid future issues like this more easily.

I'm curious where administrator authority over the codebase ends. Do only the Headmins have a say over changes? Do Primary Admins? Do the Admins as a group (#AdminCouncil) get to provide their feedback for major changes first? Or is it purely you and the maintainers that oversee our (limited) coders, and contributors? > #AdminCouncil never. Barring major changes (new gamemodes or shit like that), we do not give admins preview or heads-up on stuff. We may talk with them, but we may just as well talk to the playerbase or whomever. Or no one. Once the PR goes up, they have the same capacity to see it as any other individual. They do have a direct channel to me if they spot something weird. I suppose there's an agreement between myself and the head admins that, if the head admins raise major stink over something, we'll give it a second guess. And sometimes we bring PRs to admins for feedback, if we feel it concerns their domain and is contentious. Ultimately no admins have any power over git. The Head Admins do have box access. So them's the lines.

I had some expectations of what this complaint would be. By virtue of having talked with both sides via private channels about how they felt about the issue and the opposing side. And instead I got something relatively useless. Like, if I were head admin, this complaint would be relatively hard to pull something very concrete out of. You're literally just dancing around each other, not really talking about the issues. But an invalid complaint doesn't necessarily mean there's not an issue. Granted I'm not active in-game anymore, so the shenanigans you two get up to in dsay is mostly foreign to me. But I have been tracking friction between you two for quite a while now. Coalf seems to hold Burger solely responsible for the questionable gameplay changes that Burger made, and the development team merged in. Which is stupid and conduct that only seeks to create a hostile work environment for people who bother to actually contribute to the codebase. You need to understand that it is not your job to police the contributors and the code that gets merged. And Burger, you need to stop being passive-aggressive over this issue. Specially lately. Stop testing the limits and see if you can chill for a bit. Ultimately, it'd be nice if both of you could either talk and cuddle your way through this, or just agree to disagree and not get on each other's nerves. For some reason, I believe the latter is more applicable in this situation. You both want what's good for the community, so start from there.

This doesn't solve anything. Viruses are already mostly curable at some 80% success rates with spaceacillin. What's more, it is token that some CMOs are familiar enough with virology to bodge a cure. And finally. Not all random events need to have a 100% reliable counter. Forcing the station to adapt to a situation (an outbreak) by thinking outside the box is a source of good and engaging roleplay. Giving them an easy out is lame. +1 dismissal. Addendum. Apparently I was misguided in my initial writing (immunization != curing). But still, I consider it a lame out. It can be mass-produced with active mining, and is easy to fire-and-forget. In fact, it's made to be fire-and-forget. Which, IMO, is bad design. Better to review and buff HAZMAT measures, allowing people to immunize themselves by doing proper suit-ups and quarantine procedures. So my +1 dismissal stands.

We don't use such a program. The only thing that can forbid entrance to the game like that is the game itself. But even then your attempt to connect would be logged clearly and plainly. And I'm not seeing those logs. Which is odd. I've disabled the only IP block ban we have, so I guess try again. Also, if you're using a ckey other than solidshaft, please make sure to tell us.