Skull132

I am not actually sure what the fuck I replied to. Can you bring your question and issue out a little more, because this is now smelling like a minefield where anything I say will be misinterpreted. I snagged onto this. Which seemed like a question of lethal force over non-lethal. But it appears that your question is more directed towards: "Should we have done anything?" as opposed to arguing the degree of force utilized. EDIT: it also seems that my reply derailed Chaz. All is good.

Security should remain reactive. It sucks a lot, but generally speaking, lethal weapons become green lit only once the hostiles have shown the capacity for lethal force themselves. In all other cases, non-lethals should be preferred and their successful application striven towards. That is the TL;DR of it, without taking account the millions of variables.

You would be right in your hesitancy. On Aurora, as per the station directives #1 and #2, all Heads of Staff are treated equal. There may be a pretense in the HoP being the most experienced (out of the other heads of staff) in buerocracy, but this is not always the case. My ultimate preference is on the Command Staff model of operation, but if they want an Acting Captain, then the Command Staff needs to decide this together. Right you are! Feel free to enslave them and such! They'll like it (or they'll just grumble as you ruined their chairRP, but they deserve it)! Yeah, basically a courtesy thing. If you have an RD, and you are giving a scientist more science access, then get the RD's permission for it. Or have the scientist get it, as obtaining it is not technically your job, but you can help them if you're feeling up to it. I've never seen this done by any HoP on our server. But you can definitely give it a shot! Just make sure to coordinate with the rest of C-Staff. Let me just toot my own horn here. I basically wrote down my book while playing Command Staff in this thread. These are by no means the only answers to the questions I have raised in the thread, but they are my own, and work just fine for me. And while your mileage may vary, keep in mind that perspective is one of the most important things to being a leader. I thiiink that does it? If there's any other questions, feel free to pose them!

So what you're proposing is a cycle of extended -- voted -- extended -- voted -- extended ad infinitum?

Fox is in. It needs proper framework to be added in, which I'll probably do next weekend. Right now, it's basically a corgi in a new skin and with a new name.

Simple question, really. They'll retain some of their damage while wielded with one hand, but to unlock the full potential, you'll need to two-hand them. Damage values will not be altered (one handed will be half of present damage, wielded will be equal to present damage). Thoughts?

We can probably have a cheaper alternative be the stetckin pistol?

Ayup, as Scopes said, we can't do much about it for the time being. As always, reference this thread for when we're back up (you can also subscribe to it, and get email, I think, notifications on when replies are posted): http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=50

Problem? Yes, eventually. Where does the limit lie, though? I think that Taj/Unathi claws aren't that big of a deal, where as some of the more nuanced and creative bonuses actually make the balance more offset in the favour of their respective species (IPC, Diona). Taj and Unathi are probably just the most striking, due to: the amount of filth that surrounds the playing of those species (a debate I would not wish to entertain here), and the fact that they least drawbacks (IPCs get EMP-d to death, Diona more slow). Objectively, I don't think it's the massive hill you wish to make out of it, though (and comparatively, the IPC bonuses are better, even with the drawbacks in mind). Anyways, as said, unless there's an actual massive outcry of, "PLZ CURB THE UNEVEN!", I would prefer to wait until I actually get around to looking at these species in-depth.

I have yet to see the "Apply for whitelist, receive robustness" mentality in effect. The loudest, most confrontational and aggressive motherfuckers are still humans. At least, on our server. EDIT: Oh, and I think the mechanic is working as intended, it's just a byproduct of lazy/overzealous/unchecked design. Which is what you get on a project where everyone has their fingers in the same pie.

I can agree with that, but the question is: should we knee-jerk and remove the claws until a much later date, when I'll actually look at those races? Or should we just keep the claws and then review them once we actually dedicate time to them? The latter is preferable, for reasons described in my post above (they're not that big of a deal).

You just made me want to poke it. I wonder how departmental categorization is achieved.

I was once browsing the forums of a spin-off server planning to use our code. They raised into discussion the fact that IPCs can't heal themselves, and were planning on changing it. Because the work of my team was mentioned, I explained why, and was rebutted with an argument from which I took away a condensed version of: "We are a roleplay server, why does it matter that much?" I just rolled with, "Yeah, cool story broskis, do your own thing." But the thing is, we are similar -- a roleplay server. Yeah, I did draw the line at giving more advantages to IPCs, and I will probably draw that line again if Diona buffs are ever discussed. But as it stands, the claws are something I'm fine with, even if only for the reason that, "We are a roleplay server." Am I perpetuating the lazy designwork that was originally put into the creation of the two alien races (let's be frank: they are humans-that-look-like-lizards/cats, argue as you will)? Yeah, I mean, if you want to levy this. I do intend on eventually getting around to doing something more with them, just as I am doing with the Skrell right now (perhaps secondary organs for Unathi, etcetera, etcetera), upon which time the claws can be reviewed and adapted as necessary. Instead of a hamfisted change right meow. As for them being an outright mechanical advantage in combat? Eyup. They are. Should all combatants have a level playfield when entering an encounter? No. Heck no. Tactical considerations are what SS13 is about. And if being a specific race is one of them, I don't exactly see an issue with it, as long as it's kept within reason (which the claws sort of are). Oh, also, "Because people get salty when they get clawed to death" is a terrible reason to ask for change. If it's improperly escalated, report it. Otherwise, chances are, you got involved, and either your ignorance or your lack of consideration and respect for an individual with higher capabilities landed you in that position. At which point, yeah. Your choice, your end, in my book. Because I rambled a lot, here's a TL;DR: In my opinion, claws are fine for the time being. Having more intricate differences in organ structure, and other gameplay functionality would be nice, but this takes time to implement and create (also to think up). As such, I see little reason to remove the claws now, in a vain attempt to try and balance combat in a game which is built around imbalance.

Hokay. So, my current MO: since you raised effectively three points for review, I will go through each of them individually, and dispense thought on the matter. Once done, I'll take a step back and review the matter in general. Incident one, ruling one The issue itself is valid enough to be raised by a player. And it can be deserving of administrative oversight. The complaint was two-fold: Disgusting IC behavior disobedience/tip-toeing around orders as a lawed synthetic. My own investigation into the matter shows that both points are valid, both took place. To these was added the charge of metagrudge, as per your own admission. The punishment was a week ban from all synthetic roles. The alternative punishment for this would have been a warning, and a heavier punishment later down the line, if the actions in question were not ceased (the warning not heeded). Why was the matter deserving of any administrative action? Point one: the very specific way you chose to go about your business (that is to say: submissive behaviour, with innuendo hinting quite obviously at BDSM type tendencies) is something that we do not wish to subject our players to. It is the one type of potentially discomfort creating behaviour that we would very much wish to avoid seeing on our server. Agree with our stance on this or not, but this is a blanket policy: any reports about this will be managed by administration as immediate issues, no exceptions. Further, the actions in general were quite childish (annoying someone through IC means, going as far as making them uncomfortable with a very specific selection of innuendo), and deserved attention. Was the matter resolved in accordance with our rules, standards and already developed MO? Yes. Mind you, my personal preference would have been on a warning, followed by a heavier ban if not heeded. However, at the time, the warning system was not as annoying as it is now, and so, Baka most likely felt that something more tangible will serve the point better. A judgement call, yes, but a fitting one in this case. ADDENDUM: You had 24 hours to raise any issues with the proposed resolution. Had you proposed alternatives, they would have been reviewed and, if deemed as actionable, executed on. It is not required for an Administrator to raise up for review every single possible course of action. Some do it, but it is not a requirement. Incident two: Yes, this is a legitimate conclusion to draw from what was posted on the complaint in question. It is an error of communication and clarity/transparency. However, for the record, all action required was taken: Doomberg reviewed the server logs themselves with Baka, as he promised, and Baka reviewed Hycinth's logs. As a result, the issue was deemed as IC, and dismissed from the OOC viewpoint. Unfortunately, this was not communicated too well. Incident three: complaint in question, ruling in question. The nature of the complaint shifted immediately upon the suspicions of multikeying being used as a measure to bypass a ban issued. Upon confirmation of this violation, the outcome of the specific complaint was deemed irrelevant and Smileydemon banned from the server. This policy is non-negotiable, and is enforced without exception. Multikeying is something that we crack down upon very heavily, as the wild goose chases that it puts (usually) me and Scopes on is not something we enjoy. Further, we expect all players to be mature and manage their issues upfront and in an honest fashion, and multikeying is the ultimate violation of that trust. In summary, the largest error made by administration that I see on this issue is the failure to properly and clearly communicate with reference to incident two. All other rulings and courses of action adopted are valid, for the reasons outlined above. If there are questions, comments or concerns regarding this matter, then please, do share them. Skull132, Head Developer/Interim Head Administrator

The thing is, glowsticks aren't meant to be used like flares. They're small markers, at most, not meant for wide scale illumination. As for Bay's lighting, I am intent on taking that soon enough, within the next 2 weeks. So, I think we can manage to wait until then, maybe?

The hallmark of a command structure stretched to its limits is a delay in action. In which case, public moves are actually more fruitful in gaining a return, as they are easier to remember. Anyways, I had real life functions creep up on me, and was unable to keep to the deadline I noted earlier. I will try and tend to this tomorrow morning, however.

Some people also play for the gameplay. That is me whenever I play certain roles (science). Dunno, there usually isn't anything wrong with it (it's also the easiest way to avoid certain things: "Oh, you're trying to get me involved in a romance plot? Hooooow about I Just go and do this science thing. Okay? Okay. Bai."). Anyways, we should all probably grab a night's rest and see what comes after that.

Eh, levy the administration with proper guidelines and a lot can be accomplished. We just haven't really had a discussion on that matter. At least, one that actually concerned that side specifically. Or it's my own shortcomings as an Interim Head Admin. Hey, shitty times. We'll have a Head Admin soon, and then all of the fun can begin anew! EDIT: Oh, and before you say something about admins being whatever. I can write a long text about how business in ye olden days was managed, and how things were controlled. We can do that, if certain requirements are met.

Slippery slopes suck, ultimately. You either have to deal with clean up once someone slips down them, or simply stop people preemptively. We prefer the former, but it has large dependencies. Also, I was mostly inclined to stay out of this, as I did see it as something that involves players over staff. Since I am not really a player anymore, I only interjected once staff became involved (and trust me, the ad hominem attack I described at the bottom of last page is the fastest way to get my attention). And here we are, I guess.

Johnny, for the last time. I am not talking about criticism. I am talking about a misguided individual taking what they see here, coupling it with an attitude of, "Motherfucker, I am holier than thou!" and then sidelining someone neutral with it. See, the thing I like about the criticism threads is that they're optional, and very much favouring anyone who opts in. It's great! No sarcasm, it really is. The fact that we have people who will willingly walk themselves onto the line, raise their arms by their side and say, "Right folks. Here's a target for you, rip me up!" is amazing. And I do not intend to curb it in any way, shape or form. But the maligned bastard child of this amazing thing is a motherfucker who lacks any sense of place, any sense of understanding, a concrete world view, and any understanding of what the fuck he's actually saying. That person does not critque. He does not offer anything constructive. He does not offer anything to the community. And yet he thinks himself important enough to walk up to a random player, rifle off a 10 line rant about how he thinks the random player is wrong, failing,and a god damned shame to the community. OH! And what's worse! Upon objective evaluation, every single motherfucking point that person raised would be proven invalid and wrong. And bro, I fucking wish I was dreaming this shit up. Because guess what -- I ain't. It happened. As a result of someone reading this thread. The thread is not wrong. That one specific individual is (and no, it's not Inverted). And I just wanted to bring him into light.

Oh, I was of mind to fully read and give thought to this thread when I'm not hungover or otherwise mentally impaired. But circumstances dictated otherwise. Thank you for that. Allow me to repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time: The weaponization of criticism in question, the point that I was trying to address, did not take part in this thread, nor on the forums. It was a misguided individual who thought himself better than the rest. So, in an effort to stop further misguided individuals from befalling the same trap, I decided to throw up my words. Is that so fucking bad, terrible, childish? To raise a legitimate point for review, a danger? Apparently, but fuck me, right?

Actually, that's a fun point. Motherfuckers, we had a direction. But apparently people didn't agree with it. And so the arguments of "Just let us play!" were made heard. Okay, so, you get to play. The issues outlined in the original post is what you get. Direction means conforming, conforming means a lack of freedom in certain aspects. And apparently, according to what you lot have made me hear, you don't need nor want. Which is fine, I can roll with that. But now we suddenly want direction again. Hrr. Hrr. Hrr. See the issue?

And now we if could just take one more fucking step back, and lower our childishness just one more step. Feedback threads are fine if players actively participate them. No one is dragging anyone into anything with the threads that have popped around this one, both I and Doomberg acknowledge this. And it is ultimately neat that we have people who put themselves up for review like this (I have considered with the other feedback threads, but I rarely play, so I doubt anyone would have any actual intel on wtf I do as a player). EDIT: and here's a point for review. Think of a blue Skull132 for a minute. Think of me, as a player. Because I promise you, I am just as blunt and outright as I am now (moreso, actually, because I won't feel bad about cursing anymore). And more than likely, with light to what I've seen and heard today, my posts would run exactly the same mile. If it was blue Skull132 posting that warning, would you have taken issue with it? Or did you just take issue with it because it was a member of staff who posted it?

And Bokaza, here's my dilemma with what you proposed: Would you prefer a closed community, where nonconformists are simply chewed out en-mass? Or would you prefer the open battle ground, melting pot, constant process of synthesis we have now? And further, let me clarify one more time. The issue is not with characters being called out. It is with actual ad hominem attacks with this used as an assaulting point.

How about we check ourselves and take a step back? And how about we develop the functional reading skills to complement our writing skills? Allow me to break this down. Even without Doomberg's post for reference, this paragraph can stand on its own. I outlined very clearly a danger, and in (probably some misguided ploy) decided to put it up for public consideration. This is a thing to take note of when we're discussing a very subjective topic. Am I wrong in that the warning is necessary? Considering that it was posted as a reactionary measure, after observing someone do exactly as I described: no. Now, pray tell, where are you implicated? What everliving fiber of your ego felt implicated in this? Allow me to quote myself again: Because no, we don't want what I described happening. And yet it motherfucking did. Were you behind it? No, no one said that. Otherwise we would have made contact with you, and you would have known about it. Now, let's keep reading. Ergo, I have no issues with this thread in its present form (otherwise, it'd be locked), or the threads that popped up around it (otherwise, they would be locked). And this is what the person whose actions I am discussing actually did. This person wasn't you, as per my points above. But I chose to shed some light on it regardless. Now, I had a massive fuck-off rant about something else written up, but this was an easier point to latch onto. I'll post that rant in a different thread, in a different form, later.