Skull132

And this is fine. In fact, if this happens, it'll be good for roleplay, as then the identity of the species is enforced through interact, and npt arbitrary mechanics.

Allow me to just. It's hair. How is using longer than normal hair in any way, shape or form, comparable to having pink fur as a Tajaran, or wearing a pink afro as an Unathi? The comparisons seem very hyperbolic, and off-key. Is a few Tajarans having long hair (I don't think the Tajaran hairstyles are even that long, so you won't have men with floor length braids) really that awful of an idea, and that damaging to their identity as a species?

Yes and no. Anyways, I got the greenlight to code in the framework for using a config file for this. That way, we can decide what to restrict on the fly. In the mean time, we can discuss what mantags to restrict, and for how long. An admin meeting some months ago decided on all teambased antag roles, so cult, rev-head (not member), mutiny-head, nuke. I would like to add wizard as well, because it's easier to default to chucklefuckey play, not even by will. But traitor and other roles, I'd like to keep at 0 days required. Thoughts?

Honestly. I'm for this idea. We get to keep the silly thing, and we actually get to give the antag more options. *nodnod* Either make it a secondary effect of the same spell, or give them another spell if they buy the original.

Well, don't make it homicidal. I was thinking it'd be friendly at that point.

...I have an idea. What if we made cratey into a borg? Like, instead of a magical mimic crate, what if we gave it robotic legs, and a friendly AI? And then just branded it as some sort of luggage tranaporting robot, or something. It might be less ridiculous, that way?

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora/pull/748 Sorry this shit took long. I found a job ;-; As it notes in the comment, this is round 1. We'll see how this goes, and then probably have round 2, and perhaps give them some thing sback.

Hugh Janus. I rest my case.

I wanted to do this, but then work and the fact that it's kind of silly/complex, from a coding PoV, as it basically involves editing the job ban checks.

I don't think Baka even registered on the old forums?

I forget that I am not the supreme overlord of those forums. This is a sad day.

You should go and check out my website, Pump: http://skullnet.me/ Also, a question to the admins/mods: why is Pumpking unbanned/not banned hard enough?

That's great for the person reporting it, but judging by what people are saying on the "whitelist security" thread, a lot of people simply aren't ahelping when they see something doing something against the rules. Seeing that the admins are actually active and responding to problems is likely to promote not only the idea that ahelping problems gets them solved, but also that certain behaviors are not acceptable. There aren't many cases where you need to publicly showcase unacceptable behaviour. And those cases that are, those need to be managed in a fashion similar to how the geneticist issue was handled. Otherwise, it's a lot of finger-pointing for one-off things, and that's just childish, ultimately. As for building trust, it won't really work. It'll come off as boasting or beating a dead horse more times than naught. It's better to have said trust built by giving the reporter/involved parties the information that shows them that the admins have managed it, and that's it. Those people will see that work gets done, and maybe spread the word a little. Going full bore, "We banned a dude for being a bad sec officer this round, don't do this!" is a childish approach. This would certainly not be a bad idea, but the forums are a little out of the way for some people, and the rules are good... but they're also kinda general and open to interpretation. "Don't be a dick" is probably the worst offender there... it's a good general rule, but it could mean dramatically different things to different people and it isn't enforced to the letter because that would be a disaster. Without specific examples there's no way to have more than a general (and probably faulty in some respects) idea of what is and is not allowed. However, if you really don't like naming names, perhaps simply publishing (preferably in-game at round end) a list of offenses and the responses taken? Some rules have to remain general, that's how it is. Also, you speak counter to your own idea: publishing something at the end of round has an even smaller chance of making people aware, than publishing a memo on the forums. Because only the 50 or so people, at the best of times, who are on at the time will see it. Everyone else, roughly 150 other players, will be in the dark. It also lacks a proper papertrail, and will turn into he said/she said. To stop all of that, you publish either player memos, make announcements or change the rules. All of those three are more visible, will be read by more people, and can actually be checked up on by everyone and referenced more easily. And I do think you're splitting a hair a little. While I will give you that a good few rules are too general or even outdated, I don't think it's necessary to make an example out of every case. You'll literally be overwhelmed with information at that point, and you won't know what the fuck to do with it (also, keep in mind that punishment also depends on context -- sometimes player A will get banned for something player B only got a verbal warning for, because player A had a trackrecord of being a shitler). The dependency of punishment on context is the thing that's really going to screw over your idea, as you pitch it. Allow me to elaborate. Since Jackboot was already kind enough to wave about his year old job ban, we'll use it as an example. His job ban was issued with this reason: If we follow your idea, then you'd know that he (or someone) got banned for previous incidents and then breaking into the kitchen as the CE and being silly with head liberties. You, as you say, would use this to gauge what the admins are actively looking for, but you are lacking crucial information. "Previous incidents" -- you do not know how many incidents there were, you do not know how many times he was talked to, how much action was taken beforehand, how a timeframe the incidents spanned, etcetera. And so, you would be lacking crucial information to alter your own play. All you'd know is this: we banned someone for their previous history, and a somewhat silly offence. Whereas with an actual announcement on the forums, we can give you proper information of what we're looking to not see further. An example of what we've done in the past, that related to the same issue, can be seen here and here. In the second thread, Chris and I very clearly outline what we see as the issue, why we see it as an issue, what the staff will be doing about it and what we expect in the future. Heck, the first three points were fit into a very clear, concise paragraph: Do not: abuse your position as a head of staff. (And examples of specifics are brought in as the discussion continues. Granted, they could have been there at the initial post.) Do not: act silly in your position as a head of staff. What we will be doing: start issuing job bans from heads of staff more aggressively, and overhauling the whitelist system. My question is now this. What information would you get out of knowing that someone was banned for previous incidents and then having silly fun as a CE, that you would not get out of the two threads I linked?

Because the head admin and the admins are ultimately responsible for the management of the server. This includes the DOs. If the DOs mess up hardcore, then it falls on the admins to clean it up.

I think Doom is like, busy with life for this week and the next (possibly one more, I forget). But this matter should have Scopes' attention, who is passed out right meow. *Sigh* And no, JBoy, that's not how it's done. You don't create a unit and then have it "prove" itself. You create a unit, provide it with tools and instruction, and make it fit for purpose. If necessary, provide guidance, otherwise observe and enable. (And enabling is the thing we're sorely lacking in here.) There is no loop, and there is no need to prove shit to anyone -- it's a linear path, with a clear end goal.

That's a detail for them to touch up, though. And no, what is important changes depending on the situation. As it stands, the important thing is that the DOs be actually allowed to spread their wings. Once we're there, then we can start focusing on the actual flight (and the player-DO relationship).

I was going to mention something in my first post about trusting staff, but it hit me that many of our users don't trust us, which complies on to Killer's post a bit about someone messing up can take the whole team down, even if it was a mistake. I wish we could be trusted to handle the issues in a way that we deem fit and not be criticized because we didn't perma ban a guy who made a mistake in game. The thing is, and what I've noticed, is that for some reason or another we're afraid to make mistakes, and we're afraid of having them pointed out. As a player, this is whatever. No one's really going to care if you turn into grumpy-kitten over someone calling your science experiments flawed. But staff should probably set a higher example. And it's not actually that hard. Let's say we have Griffon McGriffindor having fun, and someone reports him to me. I assess, and I discuss the issue at hand with him. I don't see outright malicious intent in what he's done, so I default to my MO of a warning, followed by a 5-ish day ban if they do not comply with the warning (repeat the same offence, or an offence of similar nature). I do that, file the notes, and report back to the player who sent the ahelp about Griffon that I just talked to him. The worst thing can happen here is the player replying with a, "...That's it? You didn't ban him or something?" Basically, discord between the expectations of my actions, and my actual actions. At that point, I'd just explain myself in a short and concise manner, and carry on. If that does not satisfy the player who adminhelped, then he's free to post a staff complaint about me and we can go party there I can explain in greater detail what I did, why I do it (if I don't detect malicious intent, I've never issued bans on the first offence, regardless of the offence (possibly with only like, one or two exceptions); it's always been a warning first) and yeah. That should resolve it. It really isn't that hard, nor does it take much effort. The thing to keep in mind is: if you're in the right, then you're in the right and you can always explain it in a short, clean form. If you're not, then it's fine to have a think about it, maybe consult another mod/admin, and re-evaluate your actions. A small gem: Honesty goes miles beyond the illusion of always being in the right.

The Head Admin is still responsible for the actions of the DOs, though. So he needs some level of contact with the team. Whether it's leader to leader, or liaison to leader, that's up to him to decide. Also, the issue is not the players trusting the DOs. It's the admins trusting the DOs.

No, it doesn't. But your stance on a lot of things seems very extreme and grounded on assumptions, not actual analysis. Hence me jumping in. Anyways, the issue present is that there's too many chiefs, and not enough indians. A classic problem, really. One of the cleanest way to probably deal with this issue to is actually empower the leader of the DOs, and pull the admin-side of it back to how it was when I set the system up: a liaison or two passively tracking, mainly to keep the Head Admin in the loop. Every other element is pretty much redundant, and if anyone still feels that those pieces need to be present, then this should be flipped to a question of, "How can we actually set up the DOs so that we can trust them?" Nothing too complex about it v.v

The reason Im "implying" is because I heard straight from the horse's mouth that it's almost happened before. While actually lacking the information necessary to make a substantiated claim. Do you know why they didn't wish for said action to go through? Cause the main chatter I hear between the admins and DOs is about a silly papertrail not being left or protocol not being followed to the tee somewhere, and that gets actions scrubbed.

Yay, assumptions. Again. The levels of checks are there to make sure everything was followed properly, and that all tickboxes were filled which, yes, is an OOC consideration. So you're partially right, but it's there to exist as an oversight mechanic, not a way to influence decisions, or for the admins to get their way, as you are so pleasantly implying. Oh, and yes, it is cumbersome as fuck.

Two issues you compiled into one. First is trust. "We've handled it" is a response that can mean an n-count of things now a days, and you lose trust towards the staff of action actually being taken when you report something. I can get behind that, and understand that. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity and building/keeping staff-player trust, I think it's completely fine for a staff member to say that, "We've warned the dude about doing X," or "He banned now." You're the reporting person, you are involved, so you have a right to know that the matter was resolved in accordance with the rules and whatever. The second issue can solve in a slightly better fashion than what you propose, I find. No names, no specifics are needed. Instead, we just have the admins actually update the rules when necessary. There is never an instance where you need to point out that, "X did this, and got slammed for it, so I shouldn't do this." Instead, if something becomes an dislikeable trend that the admins start acting against regularly, they should just update the rules, or post an announcement about the general behaviour that they're now actively tracking (like we've done in the past). That is, frankly, a better solution to the same issue.

This, please. Just a quick note, the amount of times bad security officers were reported to me ingame, back when I still had admin privileges, was surprisingly low. Either we didn't have bad officers (doubtful), or they weren't reported (more likely). There were the huge cases of nuke ops v sec officers, where both sides gank and cry to mommy, but the consistent shits seemed to fly under the radar somehow. I'm unsure how much player complaints were utilized to this end, I remember the cases about Sue, but that's about it. The rest I had delegated. Also, another bit of clarity to add. If you're looking at DOs to deal with this problem, as I perceived from a few gripes posted here, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Shit sec officers, who are shit on an OOC level, are not the concern of the DOs. They're the concern of the admins.

Josh just illustrated how circular every single one of these discussions is. "Sec wants to RP, but get ganked when they try. So, in self-defence, they gank back." Versus "Antags want to RP, but get ganked when they try. So they gank in self-defence." Been on both sides. Also been a fly on the wall. No matter hoe many discussions like this we have, literally fuck all changes. Sec argues that it's ridiculous to expect them to add blatant and illogical restraints to their MO, just for the sale of giving antags a chance. Antags will argue that asking them to stop preemptive action and seizing the initiative, the very thing you need for just surviving as an antag, will cut out down on their capabilities to do anything interesting. And you know what? That's just fine by me. For me, the important thing is intent and the plan. If an antag succeeds in making a round great, what does it matter that one player out of thirty died in an unsatisfactory way? The net total is still a positive number. A quick note. I am not endorsing gank. But the very blunt fact is that there are no perfect plays. Mistakes will happen, gank will happen. Just as long as it's for a better goal, and not for the sake of ganking. So, yeah. Does it suck that we're here? Nah, not really. We've been here for a year and more, so same shit different day, really. Oh, and Techno's right. Whether you're sec, an antag or just a random joe, extending both arms in greeting is a bad idea, and you will be disappointed if you do so. Instead, always keep your finger on the trigger, but also try the extend the other in greeting. Less hurt feelings if someone fucks up, that way.

There is a third choice, but the sum total of going that route can end in more complaining and bitching. And there's also a fourth, which will end in the least amount of bitching and moaning -- completely ignoring it. The thing is, though, every role on station might as well have an unstated "bounty" written on it. It is ignorant to claim otherwise. The way I personally see it, you accept to wear that bounty if you sign up as the role, and you accept the consequences of wearing it.