Skull132

A part of me is wondering how CPU intensive it would be to have lights that actually flash, and that can actually be destroyed.

Why not just take the spare ID, hand yours to a trusted doctor, and swipe to victory?

Interview with Slc: My main concern here is the reductionist viewpoints. Basically, the line of thinking I was able to observe was that, "Because certain people abuse something, no one should be able to, because someone will abuse it." The thing to recognize here is that Mdoerators are here to deal with issues like this. A duty of a mod is to deal with the folks who abuse something, so that the rest could still enjoy it. Thoughts on this?

This is a personal limitation. Not only can all of these items be used in a controlled manner, there are situations where literal war is completely acceptable escalation. That is the entire point of roleplay: to roleplay and to see where the heck it takes you.

Jboy, you should read the rules. Gank is not defined by the amount of people it affects. And well executed slimepocalypses or other mass casualty events are permitted, as long as they are, well, well executed. You may read further elaboration on the subject here: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4453 Now, I request that you disengage from this conversation as you are not involved in the complaint. (And are thus violating the rules you are supposed to be enforcing.) Your concerns will remain here, and should an admin deem them valid in any way, they will be addressed.

Gank is more specific than grief. It is a type of grief.

I don't remember handling Delta as an AI recently. I'll browse the logs in a bit, see what can be found.

And BOREALIS is already the dominant cyber-entity.

You're overlooking literally every other hostage situation in similar vain, which has not been punished by staff. Aren't you? Oh, and my forum track-record has always been awful. Critical actions are usually taken on time, and on schedules posted, but the reports get stalled or lost. It is literally easier to track me down and discuss the matter 1 on 1.

Not almost. I did say that. Characters are permitted to act against standard procedure and corporate regulation, as long as it is done within reasonable boundaries. As far as I'm tracking, Yinzr does not go around gutting prisoners who could be subdued as a part of standard protocol. Further, this situation was anything but standard.

What is murderboning? Please define it for me.

The admins held a meeting. Reviewing the two situations presented, it was determined that: The first one, though not the best roleplay, is not cause for administrative action just yet. As it stands, prior enforcement of regard for hostage situations has been relatively lax, by this merit attacks similar to this by security have almost always been permitted. Specially considering the fact that this attack would have succeeded, had it not been for the relatively new (at the time) hardsuits. If you count how many rounds Meowy was actually able to hit you with, you would have been down and out on old code. As such, the plan wasn't seen as too idiotic. The second situation, majority of the admins saw as a definite "Ermp. Nope.jpg, please." I'm kind of on the fence, and have been sitting on that fence since the discussion. It sort of runs into conflict with two ideologies, that of OOC sportsmanship and IC motivation. The OOC side of it is simple enough: ideally, security would not do shenanigans like this to antags, full stop. Though this may lead into fun discussion about sec being forced to give antags a chance, whatever, in the long run but that's neither here nor now. The other thing is IC: Unathi are warriors, and NT does canonically hire Unathi warriors to work in sec. And where as executing a person like this would be a definite no-no for a human, it gets muddled for Unathi. A part of their culture is warfare, and if we can't nuance our characters around that, then why do we even have races? That's my present dilemma, and input would be appreciated. As it stands, we're keeping our ears perked for further complaints and watching him, ready to take action as necessary, and the fact that we are doing so has been discussed with him.

The 2/3rds rule has been implemented once again. The game will inform when the rule is active or not.

This still applies, unless the DOs want to change it (the mods and mins don't).

Is on during deadhour, has no negative history, and is good on ingame conduct. The only negative I can spot at the moment is the lack of involvement on the forums, how do you think that would affect your tenure as a moderator?

Here's my question. And do pardon this being blunt. Why is it their fault for you losing your shit over the situation? You got a taste, a very real taste of being a member of staff. You got the hardcore version, as it also involved something relatively close to your heart. In standard moderator duties, this would be akin to handling a situation that involved your character while no one else is able to. Ever since we abolished FFrances' policy of, "The staff take no shit from anyone, and will mute or ban you for giving even a slight amount back to you," the staff are expected to remain cool in certain situations. A situation like that is a perfect example of where a member of staff would need to cut themselves off for a moment, off-load to another staff member, and let them deal with the situation. Instead it kind of ended in a complaint post that consisted 4 or so paragraphs of off-topic filler, and the rest was just attacking the subjects of the complaint. Your previous application was on point, and good to go, minus the notes that we brought up. This one comes off as arrogant and dismissive, if anything. Why apply for an organization that has as low standards as you feel? How are you even capable of representing as many ideas as you claim you can, when it is visible from the forums that there exist disagreements between you and other community members?

Well, the rules are going to be up for public debate later end of next week. So we get to bash this one out. If it's necessary as a direct rule. I would much rather turn around the rule-enforced focused on the antagonists onto making an engaging story, and leaving this as a mindset type deal.

I'm not exactly talking about administrative punishment or any of that. The two things we punish for in relation to the topic is gank of antags/valid hunting, and complete refusal to go along with antag antics. The latter is things like ghosting whenever you are tortured to join the cult, or ghost whenever you're forced to RP along with an antag in general, through valid IC means, and for the sake of a decent round. It's on par with ghosting whenever you get arrested by sec, and is taken action against if you turn it into a trend. Consider this more a discussion on mindset, an elaboration into certain understandings we may take for granted. Some people have run into this issue, others haven't.

The rule I'm about to ponder on: First, the giant elephant in the room, let's just kill it and shove it out the room: I do not like the rule, mostly because of the doublestandard it permits people to hold. While the rule itself is not all that bad, the way it is interpreted can become and issue and I would rather have it removed outright. Hence, in the next rules updates (more info on this next week, not up for discussion in this thread), it will be replaced with something along the lines of, "You must create engagement". But, as said, that's neither here nor now. We'll start from the top. Why does this rule exist, what is it meant to do? It's meant to make it clear that being an antagonist is not about a selfish power trip through the halls, while killing everyone with a light machine gun. It's meant to guide the antagonists towards focusing on a narrative which may then be enjoyed by both the antagonist themselves, and the other players. And it focuses on the antagonist because, as we believed, they are the ones in power over any given round. However, one flaw in this is that it does not directly bind others to adhere to the same exact rule. Here's a question for you all: why should the antagonist be forced to work for the enjoyment of others, while non-antagonists have no such binding? Yes, the antagonists did indeed choose their role, and they are aware of this expectation. I agree, they should focus on it, but it does not mean that others get a free pass on it. Let's zoom out a little, and figure out what we're actually doing here. What is the point of a roleplay server on SS13? In a sweeping statement, I could summarize it as, "To create an interactive story with a whole load of people involved." With such a goal, in my mind, the requirement for setting aside personal enjoyment so that others get to also enjoy the round should be applied to everyone, to a various degree. Diving back in, that perspective should help with the issue I've started seeing again. Specifically, there is a certain perceivable belief where the antagonists are reduced to some kind of clowns who are meant to pull fancy tricks, while the players get to pick and choose what scenarios they want to involve themselves in. And the rule I explained at the top gets used as justification for, what is effectively horrible sportsmanship. And there once existed a server where such a thing was permitted to run rampant, as such horrible sportsmanship was actually normal for the administrative staff to indulge in as well. It relegated the antagonists into being nothing but mild amusement, which would then get mopped up whenever they went just a bit too far. They were no longer permitted to create a story with actual gravity, or anything beyond simple slapstick shit that we all cry and wince about. As it stands, an antagonist is forced to roll with a whole bunch of shit. From sec hunting them down, to players complaining and bitching if something goes awry. Even if their intentions were good. If we add on top of this the pseudo requirement of, "Know who you fuck with, or else the person you're trying to engage in your story simply will not go along with it," then what is there left for an antagonist to do? Literally just kill people and that's it. Further, keep in mind that a good few rounds actually rely on the players being receptive to manipulation ICly. Cult and revolution are completely and utterly dependent on people going along with the antagonists for the sake of a fun story. While there are issues with them not recruiting, there are also legitimate issues with players just actively noping away from being recruited. I can understand if your character is a diehard NT fan, for whatever ungodly reason, but that is about as fun as the admins actually enforcing the rule of, "You can't do anything that would get you fired, unless antag." Remember folks, roleplay here is not only about sticking to character, but also about creating and assisting in the creation of a short round narrative. If you just stonewall all options offered, then, well. I've got little else to say about that. Lengthy, but such are my thoughts. What are yours?

The issue with this is, how many people would try to fuck with the freedom of the subtler way, instead of going along with the ride for the RPs?

They used to be broken on old code. I haven't tested on new code, someone should and get back here with results!

https://discord.gg/0sYA49zHYGnKWM9p Permalink.

Heyo, question, are you on the Aurora discord chat? If I had your name there, I could sideline you for a chat and stuff whenever the timezones match up.

Cursing, "Die you s'wit!" with a raspy voice, Ervas' hand slipped once more to his bandoleer of scrolls. He picked the very last scroll, twisted his palm around and shoved it towards the nord, aiming as high as he could. A bolt of ice would thrust out of his palm as he did so, flinging itself into the man strangling him.