Skull132

That doesn't exactly clear you. You literally jumped at someone's throat over a reasonable, objectively, course of action ICly (if a security officer is not permitted to bypass the reading of rights in a situation where there is active combat, then I have no clue where I've ended up at). And while yes, Tainavaa's comment can be potentially be perceived as snide, it was the first such retort provided after you had already called them out and effectively insulted them. Which. Is pretty much an indication of the childish attitude that got you banned in the first place. Attitude which violates the agreement you made with me. So, bleh. While banning over a first case incident is arse, it's basically continuation of your attitude from the past (which we tolerated for a good few months before actually banning you). And at this point, I'm in favour of reapplying the ban.

Oh, yes, I was honestly expecting you to reply about your original ban reason. Well, an acknowledgement of the following will do. Since the attitude demonstrated at the time of ban was, "I/my friend doesn't like this place, so let's go have fun there!" I expect you to understand that any repeat showing of such an attitude will end in a permaban that will not be lifted.

The player hasn't logged in since the incident, which is now 3 days old.

So just to clarify, Sue is getting a tempban because she essentially wrote blood messages out of bad will with the intent to get antags caught, so that the round would end? In short summary, yes. A mentality which goes against the requirement to respect other players, and the fact that antagonists are a necessity on our server. To be determined by the Lore Master and herself.

Alrighty. The logs associated with the incident: http://puu.sh/hIkt8/10c8734c62.txt Namely, these are all logs where Susan's ckey is in use. Lines 7665, 7793, 7813, 7837 are the conversation between Susan and a Trial Moderator, Ryfer, assigned to manage the incident (due to a lack of other staff active, with Josh being occupied in real life). This is basically the violation of the rules against metagaming and powergaming, a very severe violation at that, conducted by a senior member of the community. More distressing is the fact that this is literal proof of a mentality which appears to hold a grudge against antagonists. This is something we cannot allow, specially if it is a grudge acted out upon, as the above case proves. Susan has already been warned to tone down her attitude on the forums, and ingame, so the following point will be escalation of that. Furthermore, in the past, a few singular bans have been handed out for conduct which is lacking in sportsmanship and respect towards antagonists. that is effectively the same as showing a lack of respect towards any player, and their game. As such, Susan will be banned from the server for 7 days, and if this attitude continues to manifest itself, a further ban will be permanent.

As it stands, we are looking into the matter. Please provide us roughly 10-15 minutes to finish the investigation.

They cancel out with an explosion, last time I checked. I do not know about bombing them, though. A part of me wants to try it once as RD.

An idea for this was provided. And while there are pros and cons to executing either method, I think we should review them. Not now, not in this thread, but I may be able to draft up the two ideas present on the matter over the coming week.

It's kind of silly, some of it. Okay, I have been told by certain staff and players alike, that you can't gank someone. Alrighty! Fair enough! I need a reason to kill someone! And I need preceeding RP, depending on circumstance! Superb, I can do that. But those same people also hold the standard of, "Well, if you capture someone, and you intend to kill them, roleplay it out a little. Give a monologue or something." That last argument has always confused me. If the line of a valid kill is drawn with the simple requirement of having a dialogue with the person you kill, is that roleplay? I'd argue that more roleplay, a greater story, can come from a quick, quiet murder, rather than from some devilish scheme being drawn out before the knife is stuck in. It's silly. If the killer is intent on killing my character regardless of the dialogue he is required to establish by that standard, then he might as well just kill me. If it drives towards a greater story, a greater purpose, then why should he be required to say some asinine few words to me, in order to "validate" the kill? It's silly. A kill's "validity" should be based on the reasoning behind it, first and foremost, then on the execution. We've given way, partially, to a culture which rewards bringing up an argument the moment something you don't agree with happens to your character. And it's silly, and annoying. So great.

I think the only sinking ship we can speak of is our current technical situation. The rest is just assessment, voice of opinion and thoughts. This sorta thing happens when a community comes out of a prolonged growth-spurt and finds that it needs to actually figure out a few things, or change a few perspectives.

Erec Bellard - 135 or 335, depending. You know which 200 points are in question here. Allyn "Crimson" Adema - 445. Not bad.

Update, May 8th, 2015:

I'll post this before I pass out for the night. I don't enjoy playing this card. But, I've been here since the start, initially as a player. Through progression and effort, I am now the Head Developer. Through circumstance, the Interim Head Administrator. I've had the pleasure of working alongside 4 wonderful leaders (Subdigital & Sphere, YeahChris, FFrances). And with Chris, we set Aurora ticking the way it has been, on the surface, been ticking up until this point. We accepted that it'd change, we rolled with it and actively sought it, with regards to a few issues. I have held that, generally speaking, Aurora has been the same eversince YeahChris and I established the core principles. But, take note of the tense. I no longer believe that, and it's puzzling to a degree. And ultimately, I am disappointed in myself for letting it end up here. Beyond the semantics. Beyond the people. Beyond the tickrate of gamemodes. What has changed? And why does any of that change even matter? What has changed is the current preference of a "no-exceptions" methodology. There exist rules, policies which frame everyone. Limit everyone. A character with an acknowledged criminal past is taken immediate note of. A character with an active, but undercover, criminal presence is taken immediate note of. A character in a curious position is, more often than not, taken immediate note of. The enforcement of blanket policy has become the norm. In a very crude fashion. Why is it an issue? Because, and I'm sure others have their own ways of thinking about it, but this is my own: there is no more reward in it. For anyone. You could create the most intricate character with the most active criminal presence, find all the loopholes and bribe people, create a situation where you can maintain a reasonable cover while doing your thing as the antag status ticks over or even without (smaller things). But the moment someone catches wind of this: "No, NT doesn't hire criminals." The effort, legitimate effort, is not rewarded anymore. And if this is the case, why should you even bother? Simple, you shouldn't. The station becomes a boring mix of minor-league fucknut #n, the shy medical expect #pi and the war grizzled detective #tau. Hyperbole, but you understand the point, I hope? The argument that Tainavaa is partially getting at, at least was yesterday, is that the approach should not be: "People are creating shit undercover syndicates, so let's just make it so no one can have undercover syndicates." And yet it is. The approach should be: "Okay, that's your character? That's reasonable, carry on." And yet it isn't. And the stupid fear of everyone having hardened criminals as characters? Or of every other person being some sort of syndicate agent that actively and poorly flaunts their butt? Those people can be managed. Either nudged and guided, or very simply nixed. But the fear of abuse should not lead to tightening the screws on everyone. Not like this. Obviously, characters like that will be kept to appropriate standards. Namely, if they get screwed over ICly, then that's their consequence to deal with. If they don't, and just null or constantly rewrite the character to avoid these consequences in a manner unfair to the others involved, then we can step in, tap'em on the shoulder and advise otherwise. People keep thinking "What ifs". It actually irritated me rather greatly today, during a discussion about the same topic. I raised these points, and folks immediately jump to the points of, "What if X, Y, and Z?" It felt as if they needed an entire book, with exactly outlined possibilities and molds that you can use. Instead of simply keeping to the idea of, "Is it reasonable?" Instead of writing an entire sodding book, or arguing an infinite amount of "What ifs", the initial situation should simply be assessed on its validity, and any damage afterwards curbed as it appears. Not because we're afraid of someone being a shit. Examples from the recently most active topics: multidisciplinary characters should be assessed on individual validity. Instead of writing up an entire agenda on what exactly we allow and don't allow. Guidelines which already exist. Engineering armsrace should not be defined by some visible line. The current guidelines of powergaming are already applicable enough: arming without a legitimate reason is powergaming, ergo, punish the ones that do that, and let the rest toil away, respond and die. The hardsuit removal bullscheisse should fall in line with the same guidelines already established for acquiring genetic copies of yourself and other folks as genetics: if SOP for character, then consider passable, until deemed objectively detrimental to gameplay. And yet, some folks are pushing these to be general policies. Which is the issue: framing and molding. This will potentially bring more folks yelling, "Favourtism!" and so forth. But as long as staff are kept accountable, and reasonable approaches are the ones opted, it won't be an issue. Because, we've had people like that in the past, back on the old forums. And we managed it then. We just have more folks to deal with now, but we also can get more staff to compensate. And there will always be folks like that, it's just a matter of ensuring that you maintain your standard and don't discard valid charges, no matter how horribly misphrased. Erm. I think that concludes this... What is it? Rant? List of observations? Platter of cupcakes? I have no clue, it's like 0150hrs at night, and I have a verbal exam tomorrow. Weeee. I'm going to regret everything. Oh. There is a thing. "Per Ardua Ad Astra" *nids* EDIT: Apparently it's staff-introspect night. Kids: this is what happens when the server is down. K? K.

What people think Admins and Mods do when the server is down: What Admins and Mods actually do when the server is down:

Um. Guys, this is an OOC complaint against the person. So please, stall the IC responses and rephrase them in an OOC manner. It's easier to understand in that manner. I will say one thing. You can write as many SOPs as you want, but you also need dudes on the ground to enforce them. And no, I'm not talking about admins right now. We can ban terrible people as they become terrible, but player-driven leadership, and leadership by example in this case, also needs to be a thing. EDIT: Actual perspective on the matter. Before the Ninja was granted entry, I received a fax from IAA. It described an armed intruder interfering with work and being let to see research matters. My response to this was a fax containing the following body: Intent was to, basically, introduce some hindering factors to the wizard's operations. Basically, if they wanted to see RnD, they'd need a guard or something, as is realistic. Now, how this was interpreted by the IAA and Sec, and was the CMO informed of the contents of the fax, as they should have been? Cannot confirm at this time, as I left shortly thereafter for reasons concerning life.

The thing about Baystation is. Their batons don't instastun anymore, unless they reverted. Ergo, no one has access to instastun weaponry. So even importing their stunprod wouldn't change anything.

I've seen this happen once, personally, which was during a cult round the day before yesterday. Engineering literally had bats on their table, and most of them were armed with stungloves. Mind you, they were content to just sit there, and the station had already dipped into a massive shitstorm prior to that, so I was content to let them sit there. There are roughly two approaches to this. First would be simply managing the people. Which, babysitting a department as an admin is odd, but it can be done. Or just a general statement regarding engineering arming themselves before a certain point. The other thing, which we're partially doing, is nerfing some of their tools. Namely, the insta-down never-miss stungloves. They are abhorridly powerful, and give a very clear advantage to a user untrained in combat. They've already received one nerf (they no longer fit in webbings and so forth, so carrying them is bulkier), and I'm inclined to see about making them work like tasers, perhaps. Hopefully, removing cheap and relic weaponry from their arsenal make them feel more fragile. The one troubling comment is, the initial modification to stungloves was spotted roughly 5 minutes after the update was put live. During an extended round. By a non-antag CE. So, yeah. Stop powergaming, please. If science isn't allowed to make weaponry for the keks, then engineering shouldn't be allowed to carry around stungloves 4noraisins. EDIT: And as far as antagging goes. If you see engineering armed with things like this. Feel free to take more drastic measures against them. An armed individual in SS13 does not enjoy the protection of being civilian to an antag.

http://puu.sh/hBC37/b599fc130b.png What cherry picking are we talking about? These are all logs taken from the the time of the incident that were generated over OOC or LOOC by both of you. You knew the conditions of your probation, Hunter. Give me one reason beyond, "I was let off with a warning because a Moderator said so," for me not to move as we agreed upon. Because you didn't present any, and I would wish to hear them.

Ban lifted. While it is noted that the conclusion of all conflict is expected during the end of the round, the actions do not fall in line with the definition of grief, as written into the rules, and did not cause larger issues. A warning would have sufficed, as commented by other admins upon reviewing the matter. The ban was placed by a Trial Moderator under circumstances when higher ranking staff were preoccupied with other matters. Such action goes counter to the guidelines of a Trial Moderator: all bans must be affirmed by an Admin, or in the case where none are present, a senior Moderator. We apologize for the inconvenience, and the brash actions of our staff. And as a general note, retroactively enforcing 3 day bans is not something we're inclined to do. Unless it's a chain of similar events that have been let slip for one reason or another.

End of round grief is just that. Specially when we're discussing outright antagonist actions on central command. And while yes, I admit staff being at fault for the second incident, levying a single case for a concept which is enforced about 9 times out of 10 is erroneous, and would serve to create exceptions, instead of ensuring in the future lack thereof. Regarding the second incident, I remember the case, I think. But it was back in January/February? So I can't remember all details required. With Central Command being considered attached to the escape shuttle, due to it existing as a very minimal part during the original conception of the rule. As I was also informed, you undertook the actions after a delay. This is very ill-advised, and more often than not, while staff are managing the initial issue, any other violators of the rule are immediately jumped upon. This is due to instances where a single issue can generate further issues that require action, thus making the delay last longer. Whereas the staff objective during a delayed round end is to resolve all problems efficiently, and proceed unto the next round.

Ban has been lifted. If you're having trouble logging in, feel free to PM me. Locking and archiving.

Unless there are any further notes posted about this, I'll lift it tomorrow.

As I said in the last skype conversation, it's been a pleasure. And an honour, in a few respects. Best of luck in your future undertakings.

I've never trusted deals like that, personally. But if you're certain it'll serve you as you intend it to, it should be fine. Personally, going to the Tallinn University of Technology and starting this fall, actually.