Skull132

Reply one

Newer - this is target.

I was actually planning on moving all of those threads into the feedback thread. I just thought of it last night before passing out, so haven't gotten around to it yet.

I think it'd be dependent on your role. If you're in a role where you need to be visually identifiable, such as a sec officer, captain, etcetera, then they'd be more strict. For civilian roles, no one really cares until you have the captain shouting orders at you to dress proper (which you can). I'll pelt this at the lore team for a proper answer, though.

If you were to read my reply, FFrances, then you'd take note that the 13 minutes between the last communication and the ban were time that Kazkin was no longer on the server. (Ergo, the time he was allotted to reconnect.) He logged roughly 30 to 60 seconds after sending his last reply. Plus, you're looking at a minor correction, something similar to whenever someone starts screeching in all caps, or posting smileys IC, or whatever: we generally pass a request for the player to correct it, and that's it. If further elaboration is required after said note, then we'll provide it as is necessary. Communication of issue and request on that count was perfectly fine and on point. Usually no player notes are issued for stuff like that, either. The only thing Thundy could have done differently for the benefit of the situation was to give a short wait request as she was arranging her thoughts. Though, I will say, the staff will almost always give a very clear, "All clear" signal once a matter is concluded. If someone talks to you and starts hanging, then you are advised to check real quick if you're needed anymore, or not. Sometimes more urgent cases pop up that require immediate attention, and we may forget a wait request.

I don't get the point of this complaint, either. If we took action on this, then we'd end up with no rev rounds working, ever. The simplest explanation for it, and the one that makes the most sense, is that revs aren't there to just be disgruntled about the pay. There's nothing written that says a rev head cannot be a syndicate or anti-NT operative looking to stir shit. At which point, escalating the small excuse of pay-cuts would be completely valid. Another thing to take into consideration for a complaint like this is this line: You are putting your own thoughts into the head of another player by expecting your actions on the matter to have a specific, desired effect. If I want to roleplay a syndicate backed revolutionary, then whatever attempts you pull ICly to quell the revolution, I'm simply not going to care. If I was forced to respond in a certain way, simply because you were nice, then that'd mute all conflict RP.

Erec Bellard, my ancient ass main character:

As a note, with the new updates, you can make fully functional ORs. Have science build another operating table, and engineering build the room. Seriously.

The warning is: you are about to get fucked up. I will agree that you shouldn't be able to jab it through armoured bodyparts, and I do believe that's doable (harm-syringes do the same check).

One condition. I can port the "lick" feature from that one custom item rock I made. You should be able to lick the rock. http://puu.sh/m72wy/b1d43fc327.png

I never thought a post that short could be misinterpreted this horribly. Yaaay. Partially incorrect, partially correct. Yes, it is illadvised for a leader to deal with issues he/she was not present for. This is why I've avoided escalating old issues in favour of establishing a clean slate under my own control. However, it is wrong to completely disregard actions taken beforehand. They can be learned from, taken into account for future reference, etcetera. And as necessary, dismissed in favour of establishing a clean slate. Doing the latter would be in line with this: The issue of not trusting your peers is one that requires action regardless of whether or not the reasons for it being there are valid. To say otherwise is to let a team devolve into a mess of backtalk and shittery. Also, the issue was not identified on a gut feeling. Both Wittme and Sierra almost outright said that they do not trust Jackboot with his present role. How much clearer do you need to get? The issue existed, it needed action to be taken. You cannot have a team where 2 people out of 5 do not trust a third. As a leader, you have to address it. How you do it: whether by communication, dismissing the people who complain, or the person who's being complained about, or some fourth way -- that's up to you. To be honest, I was not staff when the decision in question was passed. I have my opinions on it, and consider it a failure of two teams, as opposed to simply a few individuals, though. I mean, that's all fine and dandy, but the quote you're responding to is meant in the context of the present staff complaint. We can discuss the TF issue at great lengths, I'm sure, but it's not what we're here to do. To further explain, here is how a textbook example of this issue being handled would have gone: Figure out why Wittme and Sierra have formed the opinions that they have: identify the issues they have with Jackboot Review said issues. Figure out whether or not they're still relevant or not For relevant issues: discuss them with Jackboot, issue corrective action For no longer relevant issues: discuss them with all 3 parties present, and illustrate how they are no longer relevant (Intent is to begin restoring faith in the peer again) I do believe that wraps up all of the relevant points.

Originally I was going to post this yesterday, but then work happened. Better late than never, hooyah? Now, where do I begin. Okay. Ideally, I wouldn't even have been involved in this case. The DOs are their own team, and as such, Gollee's jurisdiction until Gollee is deemed unfit. The way myself and Tishina became involved is through complaining we kept hearing. We discussed the issue with Gollee, and pointed some of the people who were complaining about Jackboot to him. At this time, Tishina and I came to the conclusion that the issue is, as I stated, the fact that Jackboot's DO peers had lost faith in him as a DO. Is the issue valid even if the evidence is not valid? Yes. Teams operate on a large amount of trust. You trust your teammates to be there when you need them. If there is a member of the team whom the rest do not trust, then it will very quickly turn the environment hostile for everyone involved. Even if the concerns and points against Jackboot are not valid, the issue is valid. And issues like that need to be addressed. When it comes to doing so, there are a few ways you could go. The first, and probably the method that should have been preferred here, is to escalate your action accordingly. Basically, standing up and dismissing someone on the spot should be reserved for the most severe cases. Where the person has demonstrated complete and utter ineptitude at performing the tasks assigned, and failed to square themselves away. Ideally, all involved parties would be put into one room with the leader too in there, and the issues would be reviewed, discussed, etcetera. After which, the leader would choose corrective action as necessary. If, after a time, this corrective action does not result in the situation improving, then a dismissal would be used. The unfortunate fact is, if you fail to communicate an issue properly, then you cannot expect action to be taken without escalation later on. It just. Really. does not work like that. And in light of that, I wrote up regulations for future reference that apply to all staff, regardless of their team. This should make sure that issues like this are not repeated. Now, if the involved parties could please continue their dialogue, I'll butt out. Also. Regarding the TF issue. I could write an entire thesis on how almost everyone was shit at handling that. Almost everyone fucked up on that count. Further more, for the sake of avoiding clashing interests, Jackboot was told to not handle any issues concerning TF's characters. This was one of the first things I did when I became Head Admin. And as far as I know, this ban was kept to after that.

Logs: Your only mention of logging off was in DSay, and since no staff member is required to monitor all chats at all times, it was missed. You were given about 13 minutes to reconnect, and then day banned for logging during a discussion without an admin.

While I understand that this has been sitting here for about 3 days, I'd like to see a bit more dialogue between Voyd and Killer before jumping in and doing mah thang.

Not going to happen. You are abrasive and blunt without the tact necessary to pull it off in a fashion that would be fitting for a moderator. Your conduct on this very application proves as much: instead of being constructive and assisting your application by figuring out why exactly people have an issue with you, you simply attack them and their opinion. It should be noted that these attacks are as groundless as you claim the opinions to be.

What kekboot said. I mean, no offence, but to me, Seon-rin is literally a manchild of a character, played as a manchild. And it's just bizarre. And even slightly unsettling, listening to some of the shit that's been posted or what I've seen here. Starting from the flavourtext, ending with the act of breaking people's legs and forcing them to kiss Seon. It's just. All of my whats, in a basket, have them. Have them all.

What the title says. Unlike cult, Rev is less about brainwashing through force, and more about dealing with people. First off, everyone should be allowed to contribute to anti-staff activity, within reason. Further more, everyone should be free to pick their own side as the lines are drawn in the sand, instead of relying on some key figure to move the story along. This would also enable further roleplay: anything from rev getting fragmented and fucked to shit, to the entire station revolting against the heads of staff because they're going the fuckstupid route. Also, from personal experience, the best rev rounds I've had were ones where the makers didn't count for this: everyone was forced to make a very gray decision. Some chose the rev leader, others the heads of staff, and a third group chose to fend for themselves. I think this choice should be organic, and not based on an icon you have or not. Rev heads would sitll be able to see eachother, to coordinate and such, though. Thoughts?

I would also propose the removal of the mutineers minor victory with it. Make it an "Everyone lost" situation instead?

Hyperboles are a great thing, aren't they? There's a difference between being in a bind and doing something you really can't do, and failing at it, and releasing the singularity because you're incompetent. And, I can see the sanity argument, and I can also see "But ze arrrpeees!" argument. We'll see what Hunnewle saw in this.

The name.... It has absolutely nothing to do with the device ;-; I was hoping to see a suggestion for a new mining/deconstruction tool, or for a brainwashing device. Also, I wonder how many complaints we'd get from aliens losing their koolkids passes.

If I ever start coding the Christmas present for Aurora, I may. I say this, and it's probably going to be released later in January or something. Kek.

A bit over 220 euros for the two new screens (already had the top 2), and roughly 150 for the mount. Though, I later found out that I could have gotten the same thing for 100, off of another store that I couldn't remember at the time.

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about this. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm basically trying to conjure up old memories here, but Dionaea (that's the actual plural spelling, FYI) used to be, in the final stages of their life, these massive, planet-like structures that orbited stars. The concept there was quite magical, in my opinion: as a Diona player, your character is presented with the prospect of eventually integrating into this massive, self-contained eco-system, where you can share your knowledge with that of hundreds of thousands of minds similar to yours. But the new version, the present version, sees to drag them back onto the more simpler, grounded plane of having a homeworld, an origin point. And yes, while their final form is technically still around as a footnote, the emphasis on their history, as if it were another humanoid species, takes away from their old being. Let's also talk about emphasis here. I think this version of lore is mistaken with its placement of emphasis. It details their origin, it details who they are, what they do, but, it doesn't leave any mystery. The other species are very well known: humans have spent a good long deal of time with them. And have even mucked around with a few of them. But Dionaea are something we don't know much about. There's also the misplaced emphasis on combat, the forbidding of it or not. No one really thinks Dionaea to be fully peaceful and peace loving: there was nothing that outright barred them from entering combat if pushed too far. But I don't think putting emphasis on it was necessary, as you did with this quote: (Funnily enough, I don't actually think the old lore discussed how tolerant they were: curiosity and tolerance are not mutually exclusive.) The old lore is actually a testament to how well placed emphasis can morph the player's idea of a race: outlining them as slow, curious, perhaps friendly-than-most creatures creates the impression that they are less aggressive. And perhaps that much is true. I think the present handling of this impression does not do the old lore justice. As for the necrophage and radiation stuff. I'm kind of undecided on those. They used to grow simply from solar energy and the radiation that exists is space, which made them mysterious as all hell. Though them being able to eat up large amounts of matter does make sense, ish. Perhaps, again, consider the placement of emphasis, as I discussed in the last paragraph.

This. They were not put in with the purpose of securing the brig.

This topic lacks a purpose, unlike the admin armoury it's about. I don't even have a rebuttal for the involvement of RnD. I could say that even if we forced ERT to use RnD, they'd probably end up raiding cargo or sec, as both provide adequate firepower faster, but since we already determined that ERT has access to standard weaponry, the point is moot. As for ERT being too powerful: that's the point. They are meant to be a challenge. Either adapt to it, or don't. The choice is yours.