Skull132

Hi, I'm back. Again. So are you.

Default character visibility: Private Sharing with custom link: No preference Data that should be shown: Records Flavourtext? Gender Age Species Name HIGH preference jobs (as occupation?) Show ckey: Yes

What's curious is that most of these things are clear violations of rules. From breaking character to reference names and stupid character design/flavour text/records. In fact, I've been gently kiting Duty Officers away from dealing with people who have godawful records, in favour of administrative intervention instead. The thing is, we need to be made aware of such violations. Our staff is light and the team is small (for reasons that I can explain, as need be), so a lot of it relies on the players adminhelping things and reporting violations. And while we don't run on a zero tolerance policy, notes will stack and people who keep failing to meet simple standards will get removed. The reason of, "Not here to RP" is still a valid ban reason! Now, here's an important thing. I can issue orders to staff to crack down on things like painRP, or memes IC, or whatever. But without communication from the players (adminhelps), they can only do so much about it. And without feedback from the players (be it complaints or PMs) of things like, ignored adminhelps or unsatisfying solutions to problems, I can't ensure in the fact that my staff are carrying out my directives. And remember! You have a right to know what resolution an adminhelp has arrived at! If they don't tell you, ask. Ya, it's a long process, and it's a fight that won't ever really end, as new players will (hopefully) keep entering. There are a few things that interest me, however. First off is the introduction of lore and its baring on gameplay. With light staff, I've been very much against having a class of admins specifically dedicated to events or lore events. There is a plan in the works for antag contest v2, which will be mechanics reliant (thus, introducing lore through mechanics), but what else would help making lore more accessible and have a greater bearing? The second is language. You actually paying attention to how you type and what you type would be a good way of enforcing a standard which helps weed out folks who aren't interested in upholding certain standards. The only downside to such a rule would be how it impacts those, who don't speak English as a native language, but are still interested in RP properly. Thoughts? Oh, and finally, regarding OOC. Other games, RP games, have cultures which are more centered around forums, shoutboxes, Teamspeaks, whatever. However, the SS13 culture uses OOC chat for basic communication. There are people who just ghost or lobby sit, and shoot the shit on OOC because they like the people they're talking to and the environment we're in. So I will dismiss any point about OOC chatter being too prolific as just people being people and having a good time. (Not IC in OOC, though, which, again, you should adminhelp.)

Found the last autoban. It's lifted. Please attempt to connect and let me know if you still get denied or not.

For reference, "autismfort" has never been used in a negative connotation as far as I've seen. The one with the extraordinary claim must provide proof, ergo, please provide instances where it is used as such. Beyond that. I don't fully get this. Actually, I don't get this at all. It sounds like you're wanting us to crack down on a specific word because it's... Used to describe a lot of things, and thus, has lost its dictionary meaning? As if we were here to protect the English language? That seems silly and violates a rule: never do things in half measure. It's dumb beyond belief to pick a list of specific words and to censor them because of the murky as hell reason you've provided up there. Why? Because once we go through with this, a "Part 2" will pop up, and then a "part 3", followed by a "part (n + 1) * 3". Sooo, either run it to the full extent, or don't start. At all. And what is "Full extent"? Well, you either was to establish a general rule of, "Don't shitpost," or a zero-tolerance policy on terms and jokes that are derogatory beyond an acceptable point (ala how GOON does it). Unless the point of this topic flew right past me, at which point, please, do feel free to clarify.

Ban lifted, as per administrator consensus. The condition that will be enforced is the one discussed earlier: you will not be permitted back onto any staff teams.

Delayed response to redfield's opening: 4 people is too little. A method similar to command whitelisting will be too sluggish and will either have no tangible effect due to the standard for entry being too low, have an effect similar to what a cadet-timed whitelist or simply a server-timed whitelist would have (best case scenario), or literally kill security. The only way actively whitelisting security would work to the degree advertised is by rapid indoctrination and actual processing of applicants. This requires way more logistics than 3 players + 1 admin. Any other result is more easily and more safely attained through a passive whitelist and actually adminhelping bad security midround. I'll do some checks with staff about sec being adminhelped, but that can be discussed in another thread. I'd like someone who's a proponent of the active whitelist to actually explain to me how they plan on making an efficient system that establishes a standard, and why that same standard cannot be established in a manner requiring less resources. Response to redfield's plan: Too slow and inefficient, Redfield. Too reliant on applicants motivating themselves, there's nothing to push them. It's easier to give up and back off at that point. Plus, it's reliant on back-up enforcement which should already be in full swing (reference adminhelping above) . What'll end up happening is someone gets approved for nice words, fails to hold up their word, and then fuck-all happens because no actual communication about the issue.

Trial initiated on 12JUN2016. This trial will continue until 12JUL2016 and then a final decision will be made. Feel free to post any feedback about Ricky's moderating on this app.

We'll give it a test run with the next update. I'll add it onto my bucket list for coding.

And for the sake of things, here's Soundscopes' opinion on the matter after I spoke to him on the matter a few days ago:

I'm partially surprised, and a little bit disappointed, that not even you mention the root/core issue that pretty much ended Covert's run as staff and as a player on the server. O'well. Here goes. Covert's conduct was manipulative. As an admin, I'd argue that a good portion of his abuse, both the blatant kind, and the soft kind (spawning of objects for his characters justbcuz, building giant ships so he could RP with his friends) was centered around making him seem powerful. I mean, of course there's the chance that it could have been abuse just for the fuck of it, but I base my assessment on the fact that towards the end of the entire spiel, I needed to spend days untangling the webs of dishonest crud he had piled onto people. And most of it seemed to have been done with the goal of making said people perceive him in a more positive light. It was unpleasant, to say the least, and not something I wish to do ever again. There was also the general lack of consideration towards players when it came to certain actions. Though that would require me to dig up mountains of text from my PM history. But, people change. Or so my fellow admins and some players remind me. And sometimes people are worth a second chance. My opinion on the matter has not changed from 06JAN2015, but, I am willing to stow it. And for reference, the condition of, "No staff positions," is intended to last longer than in the case of a regular unban. I'll run a final pass with the admins and we'll see what we think, unless something else emerges.

I kinda want to give Arrow's idea a good thought, though. Because, the one issue with the 7 day whitelist is. It does not measure engagement. A thing that happens relatively often is that people with accounts 100+ days old join, go sec, and end up being as green as a cadet. Why? Because they joined the server once back way way way long ago, played a round, left, and never came back until now. Arrow's proposal would stop that from happening, as it measures actual engagement. Though, the issue with Arrow's proposal is that it may create a bottleneck in terms of cadet slots. If we have an average of 4 people per round trying to get their cadet on, with only 2 slots, it may get annoying to have to sit around. However, adding more cadet slots would start fucking over balance, in terms of sec count v antag count. So you're either left with the peeve of not measuring engagement, or a potential bottleneck that might frustrate.

Wow, wow, wow a blacklist? Literally, as has been said. We had a security 7 day whitelist. It worked just fine. I see no reason to stray from this tested and proven mentality, in favour of a system that requires way more effort than it would really be worth, at the end. And if shitters still end up on the lists, adminhelp them. The amount of adminhelps or complaints I see against sec is surprisingly low.

I'm honestly most hesitant towards the idea in general, given I think gameplay is most natural where the planning is discussed in IC and mechanic-specific stuff is discussed in the LOOC if required. I feel like I'd honestly see more communication in AOOC rather than in IC, were this implemented for team-based antagonists, and I'd feel like we'd be missing out more than what we'd be gaining from this. Give it a trial run: give mods access to it (right now only admins see it), and make a mute flag for it. If people abuse it, rip it out and leave it for admins and mods to coordinate. If it works out fine, theeen it works out fine.

The thing is, even with that option, it'll make all antags that have access to it lean more towards team play. And I think traitor should be a gamemode where that's not what happens. Every operative, unless they manage to find each other through IC fuckery, should be a solo operative. For traitor, team play should be the exception, not the norm.

For rounds like heist and nuke, yes, this would be amazing. Probably ling also. But I'm slightly hesitant about traitor and vamp, as there is potential for antags to antagonize eachother there. And, specially with traitor, a key part of the mystery is supposed to be, "Am I the only operative here?"

Also, for using command whitelisted players. There's a trail of like, 3-5 initiatives which have failed, because we could not mobilize the command whitelisted players to the degrees required. Nothing against them, but literally history proves that they're unreliable. As for the concern of, "What of players already qualified?" This is a technical aspect that can be squared in very simple ways. So I wouldn't worry about that.

I am now binging Samurai Jack.

The key is, Nanako, you don't make the timer too stupidly long. 7 days was fine in practice. 7 or so rounds as cadet also sounds fine, as the amount of time would be similar to 7 days. And even faster, technically. Plus, player economies can be unreliable, and I am not really willing to put my trust into them for something as vital as whitelisting an entire department. Specially when they've gone untested here.

This seems unfit for purpose. It'll allow too many people through, or end up under used. If you make the bar for entry that low, you may as well just have a day whitelist. The thing is, there are two types of whitelisting processes: those that check for quality, and those that check for persistence/commitment. Staff applications check for quality. They have a trial period and an evaluation cycle. While it could also be argued that head of staff and alien whitelists want to be whitelists running off of quality, they are actually the second kind. Whitelists that check for commitment rely on making the end goal difficult enough to reach to where you won't bother if you just want to fuck around with it. Provided you're a normal human, anyways. What you want, is a quality based whitelist for a role which is in high demand. We do not have the staff to run such a system effectively, first and foremost. Secondly, the bar for entry is low enough that applying the manpower, even if you permit players to be involved in this, is pointless. People will either forget, and the system will stagnate, or the end result will be the same as it is now. The same result, without the potential for failure, can be achieved by a simple day based passive whitelist, or with the system proposed by Arrow. Both present a simple commitment wall that must be scaled. If an individual is looking to fuck around, they won't bother. And those who want to bother, legitimately, won't be hampered too badly.

Hokay. This is going to be a bit of a long one, but heyo. I wholeheartedly recognize that the views of the community members here range from super conservative to super liberal. My intent is not to create an environment where one side is shot down by the other. As such, I am completely fine with opinionated discussion. If you do not like certain tendencies, or certain folk, then that's fine and not really my business. And if a discussion on such a topic is initiated, then you are fine to express your opinion on that matter in a civilized fashion. Should others not like it, then at that point, it is their own issue, and they need to understand that there are as many views on one issue as there are people in the world. Should your expression of opinion in a discussion turn hostile, however, that's a point where it has to end. If you stop respecting the fact that other folks have opinions that differ from yours, then you need to take a step back and pipe down. Examples to illustrate effective ruling: - This post, along with this one, was reported by a user as bigotry. In my opinion, as neither post is hostile nor outright disrespectful, they're completely fine. Recognize that people with opinions differing from your own exist, and learn to live with them. - Dropping a meme which very clearly references slavery and human trafficking will get you in trouble, however. To be completely honest, I'd rather everyone keep their shit to themselves to begin with. What you are, what you hate, what you like is your own thing and should probably be kept to yourself. But since my viewpoint is shared by a relatively small group, I'll run with what I wrote above instead. Another note to the dichotomy between the two extremes here is, both can act completely disrespectful towards the other side, and ideally, both will get put back in line as they stray. Extremes are godawful, and a lack of ability to remain respectful towards individuals purely because of their view on something dear/important to you is also, awful. ---- The other side to this is when we're discussing the critique of individuals. I don't want to, nor do I intend to create "bubbles" around individuals who need them. That does not work, and it will end in a loss at one point or another. If you try to whiteknight, you will simply lose more, at the end of the day. Everyone should be willing to accept critique, and to deal with it by simply being around here. However. Unless the person is completely fine and "in" on the joke, you should remain respectful of the individual you are talking about. Ragging on someone for no rhyme or reason, in a fashion that is disrespectful, even after they've requested you to stop (happened recently, oh goodie) should never be acceptable. ---- The TL;DR: be respectful. It isn't fucking rocket science, hooyah?

All of that, Zundy, provided that what you're saying is not offensive, bigoted, etcetera in general. And no, the excuses of, "He's not really serious," and, "it's a meme," are not applicable in those instances.

Interview with Ricky: http://puu.sh/pohYj/a9a6dcd40c.png Need to note myself for never using BYOND for this again, but sure. Solid stuff otherwise, as far as I'm concerned. Nothing I'd like to push and break. Any further opinions from anyone who's know and interacted with Ricky?

Apparently this translates into, "Casual racism is a-okay here." No bud, not how it goes. Also, this goes for everyone. Know that there's a difference between ripping on someone who's fine with it, and ripping on someone for the sake of ripping on them. The former is fine, the latter is malicious and amazingly awful. Ergo, you really should not. If someone politely asks you to stop, specially if you're ripping on them, then please, stop. And while I present that as a request, I expect it to be heeded. The excuse of, "Yeah, you should just turn off OOC if you don't want to hear this," while valid to a point, loses its validity when you're acting without paying any consideration to others within and the community. You ask someone to turn off OOC when you're discussing something that doesn't involve them, and they don't like. Such as politics, or a gameplay topic they don't like, whatever. Your request becomes invalid when you're ripping on them or their actions, however, and doing so to an unreasonable amount. At that point, you're being malicious. And since our server's rule #1 is, "Don't be a dick," and since our discord has a similar rule, "Note that this is going to be run on a very simple, "No bullshit" policy. If you're here to fuck about on the expense of others, by being provocative, trolling, whatever; then you'll simply be banned. This is meant for everyone to have fun on and to foster a friendly environment. Do not turn it into a giant gagefight because you are unable to deal with people," expect to get told to fall back in line if you go too far.

The admins are currently waiting to see if anyone has any further input on the matter. We did also decide that should Covert be unbanned, he will not be permitted to be on any of the staff teams. This would include the auxiliary teams, like lore, as well. Reason for it is simple: he has a lot of trust to patch up.