Skull132

Generally speaking, an emergency evacuation is called whenever the station is deemed unsalvageable. This invalidates law 1. Whether this means that it's actually going to get destroyed or not is irrelevant: the bottom line is that continued operation there is deemed impossible, and all high security equipment and high value shit should be taken into the emergency shuttle with the crew. The condition is that an emergency evacuation is triggered. At that point, you can just buzz off on the shuttle or a pod, as long as you end up at CC. If it's a crew transfer, regardless of situation, then you can't leave on the shuttle. You're still a borg, the if check isn't passed. As for why the AI and borgs should be evacuated during an evacuation, reference law 4:

Except it is written ICly, Xander! Cyborgs stay on station regardless of their enslavement status, provided they have the corporate law set active. This is them following law 1: You can't safeguard something when you're not around it. The only times a cyborg is permitted to leave with a transfer is if their laws are fucked with to the point where they no longer have to listen to the law I noted above, or when it's a (code red) emergency evacuation scenario. At which point, try to bring the AI with you as well! As for the shipping part, they are shipped to the station and then their laws are activated. Being shipped offsite doesn't mean they need to return within the span of a few hours, or however long a round takes. They might not even need to return at all. Hope that cleared it up for you!

So your idea is that we hold a database wherein everyone who played antagonist is kept and simply add a marker after a person once they're done playing antag? Once everyone is cycled through antag status, it's reset and we go onto another round? Hokay. There are 10 718 entries in our player database. 516 unique visits over the past 7 days, 286 unique visits over the past 48 hours. There are roughly 12 rounds per day, slightly less, considering the average round length is 2.5 hours. An average of 2 antagonists per round, considering also extended rounds with a count of 0 antagonists? 12 * 2 * 7 = 168 antagonists per 7 days. Increase the amount of average antags per day, you still don't reach high enough numbers to cycle through each player. There are two possibilities of how such a system will end: Either the time between resets has to be at least 2 weeks, at which point, you would be benched for an average of 9 days still. And you'd have wasted your one shot pretty quickly. Or the cycles are short enough to where their effect is not noticeable. There are ways to influence your chances of rolling antag. Namely, your character's relations with NT, your job. I'd like to think they're actually relatively on point, in terms of what they're ought to be tracking. The better way to rework it would be to allow you to prioritize your wish to become antagonist. But that also comes with its own flaws.

Back-up systems. As simple as that: back-up systems. It is completely reasonable to assume that the Aurora/Exodus is installed with its own back-up communications array for when the main satellite should fuck over dead.

Right you are. This is actually why the post exists, ironically enough. Read the post above for why Tainavaa opted for this approach. He felt that the issue needed to be addressed, so he posted up what he had on the moderator subforum, for the rest of the staff to evaluate. I do not see an issue with this: anyone, any player is permitted to go to an admin or a mod, and privately tell them that they have an issue with something. This is the Moderator equivalent of such action. The issue in question was the questionable attainment of IC information. And yes, should it have been confirmed that you did use OOC knowledge to augment the roleplay in those scenarios, it would have been against the rules: Had we concluded, after talking to you, that you had indeed acquired this information IC, then nothing would have been done at all. And Tainavaa would have probably said, "Okay, alright," and we all could have moved on with our respective lives. Now, why had no one talked to you yet? The issue was elevated up the chain, for myself to handle. However, since it's a short week at work, I was preoccupied on Wednesday and Thursday. I try to limit the amount of server related shit I do on workdays to coding, at most. (Couple this with the fact that most of last night I spent ensuring in the security of our player information and databases. You can figure out why this had my attention by browsing the SS13 reddit easily enough.) Would we have talked to you about this? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, hefty punishment without communication first is done in the case of griefers, and generally speaking, people who refuse contact at all. Since you have yet to refuse contact, the last clause is not applicable. Neither is the former. The general thing about the staff forums is this: they are used as a harbour of information. An issue our staff has had for eons is the fact that not enough permanent communication exists. Most issues get talked about sporadically over Discord (or Skype, back in the day), and then either nothing happens, or a misinformed/uncoordinated step is taken. To solve this, a note about something that should be handled in a coordinated fashion is posted up on the staff forums. This note is then used as an anchor to discuss over Discord. An example of this is my thread about moderator recruitment in March. 3 replies on the forums, however, the matter has been discussed on Discord at least twice in-depth. Because the forums are staff only (and thus, we don't have to worry about presenting the full picture just on the forums), we're too lazy to actually post summaries of those discussions (generally speaking). None of the posts about the meetings to overhaul the rules actually contain minutes or the contents of those discussions for the same exact reason.

Point one of being robust: never enter a situation you could potentially, in any way, lose.

Since I'm already busying myself with DO stuff for this development cycle, I'll add it to the list.

You didn't understand my point. SOP is one thing, direct orders another. The Captain or Head of Security is allowed to stop the security staff from performing searches. They have the capacity to issue such an order. SOP does not override that authority; it simply augments the orders.

You're assuming, Campin. With orders, one does not, ever, assume what they mean. The alert notice says this, verbatim: It does not comment on whether or not Security Officers are granted the capacity to subvert their Chain of Command by doing random searches anyways. If your CoC tells you that you are unable to conduct these random searches, then you are expected to listen to such orders. They aren't even in contradiction of one another. To further elaborate: this shift in alert only lifts the restriction based on Security personnel, by Corporate Regulation, to have a legitimate reason for initiating a search. It does not lift, or even touch the HoS's (or Captain's) control over the Security personnel. As such, if your commander tells you that you are unable to conduct searches without meeting specific criteria that he establishes, then you must obey those orders.

Complaint resolved, archiving.

Previous ban appeal for reference: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1147 Processing was stopped because you never responded past just making the thread.

Ban expired years ago. Archiving.

Ban lifted. Please try to curb your tangents, as well.

The ban is permanent, it just has an issue showcasing it. The only other notes you have are from the same day, regarding your name, and from June 2014. I'll talk to Serveris and see if he meant anything else. Otherwise, I'd be willing to lift it, considering the fact that the previous note is almost 2 years old.

Complaint after complaint is not always an issue. It is unwise to not pay attention to such trends, yes, but it is just as unwise to make a decision for the arbitrary reason of, "People complained about you." My intention is to go over the complaints in question, review the incidents and context, and then draw a conclusion of whether or not said actions were permitted under the rules (both in writing and in the spirit of). The admins and mods have a meeting scheduled for this Saturday to discuss other things. If I cannot arrange something sooner, due to work and timezones, then I'll nab them before/after said meeting. My intent is to have the actions described done by the end of the week.

I'm sorry, but this has to be said. Instead, you decided to spark a precedence that's almost as bad as one you imply: the staff can chose to ignore anyone because "They feel like it." That would be true, if we closed this deal, brushed our hands clean, and moved on. I have no such desires. The admins and I will go over the complaints referenced by Delta. And I will listen to the points presented by my staff, as I already did. If the judgement of the complaints is considered erroneous in retrospect, then Alberyk will be put on thin ice. This is mostly because turning a "No action" into punishment after the conclusion of a complaint is something we do in most extreme circumstances. There are plenty of cases, involving both staff and normal players, where this mentality has been adhered to. If further incidents, without a finalized decision, are found and assessed as breaking the rules, then the punishment will be reapplied, full stop.

I would like the view from Killerhurtz while I go over what happened in the round. Note that recalling the shuttle is a mechanic given to a malfAI, and as such, they can use it as they see fit. However, if they're stealthmalfing and doing fuck-all until the kill orders start flying, then regardless of whether or not they recall the transfer shuttle, it's bad roleplay and bad antagging.

It will be dealt with, but it will not be dealt with as an aside to this complaint. We are not in the business of punishing people without actual incidents or review of said incidents. As it stands, the decision was made without any such review. To do so would set a precedence beyond your wildest dreams: the staff can ban anyone because "They feel like it."

Why is this marked as resolved? Anyways. Warning lifted and note attached removed, as it's a bit of a silly thing to issue a warning over. Plus, counter productive towards the actual goal of actually getting people to talk to staff when needed. I'll have a word with Incog about it whenever he's around. done, Incog agreed on this course of action and we're magical. EDIT: The warning wasn't listed due to a database error. This has been corrected for future reference.

Partially true. There are three different timers that run parallel: small, moderate and severe events. Usually, a good few small and moderate events get triggered between every severe one, but because most of these are not as noticeable, it'll appear as if they go in escalating intervals. There are factors that change these timers, however. Such as player count on the server, I do believe. And a few config options. As said, I need to look into it a bit more in depth to figure out what buttons need to be pressed. And where. There is also a relatively large chance that each event ends up with "Nothing" being selected.

The actions detailed above have been overruled and shelved awaiting review. As it stands, the actions specifically in this complaint, by all involved parties, are valid. Yinzr followed escalation necessary, given the situation; Sue's suicide was legitimate; etcetera. I have a massive wordwall stowed to explain just why those things are as they are, but I hope I do not need to post it. It is not a pleasant wordwall. Onto the matter at hand. Alberyk received a warning by Garn regarding his aggression while playing security, following a trail of warnings of similar nature. The next step up would have been something described above. While discussing this case with my administrators, it was brought to my attention that Alberyk may not have adhered to the warning given, and that the issue persisted. At which point, the action described above should be taken. However, as a mistake, I chose to trust my administrators explicitly, without requesting the standard rundown of specific incidents. While their judgement may indeed be correct, judgement alone is not enough to enact a punishment of this nature. To clarify for anyone not explicitly tracking my usage of the English language: the mistake was on my part, in not filling a checkbox required before signing off on action recommended. Evidence must be processed, and it was an error on my part to take action without fully doing so. The two administrators that raised this matter to my attention will find the relevant instances, and will review them. As per the step I missed out on. If they are deemed as grounds enough to conclude that Alberyk has indeed not been adhering to the warning issued by Garn, then the weekban will be reinstated. Until such a time, the ban will be lifted. Any questions?

I'll look into the random event code and figure out what alters the intensity of triggering major random events before we start doing anything. Once we understand the variables, we can figure out how to optimize.

As a note, I will be unavailable to comment on this for the next 2-3 days, due to work tying me up. If this cannot be resolved intelligently in that time frame, please lock the thread and let me pick it up after I get back.

I'll bug kekboot or silver to clarify.

Ooo. this is a fun point. Do elaborate.