Skull132

Well, I don't want to make it open for everyone for posting. But as said, I am willing to review view-rights.

The initial reason for this was to give some space. Namely, if a head of staff player speaks his mind and voices an opinion which goes counter to what people think should happen, there exists some potential for that person to be picked out from the rest. If the whitelisted players are for this change, then it'll be done, however.

Your ban was put in place because you were directly creating an uncomfortable environment in which to play. I truly hope you have the understanding that such conduct is not acceptable, under any excuse. And that IC dislike of characters should not breed OOC hostility towards the player. So, while I do my rounds and consult a few folks, I need you to answer one question for yourself. Can you not repeat the actions, in any way, shape or form, if you are unbanned? Because, if you cannot answer that question clearly and if you cannot hold yourself to that answer, you will simply be banned again. So, think about this.

Modkits also became obsolete code. As in, the two custom ones we had became non-functional and some other pieces are missing, if my memory on the matter serves me. As neither player with a custom modkit was active at the time, no effort was made to fix it.

+1s ploxxx

I'll just. Merge both threads into one. Alrighty? Alrighty. There. The general boards are already cluttered with stickies, so some sort of merging helps out v.v

Sort of, anyways. The long and short of it is, I'm going to be unavailable for the majority of May (technically, starting with this weekend, actually). This is due to national exams starting up, and I really can't afford to have my mind clouded during those. And as much as I love you folks, this work is rather disruptive. As for the shenanigans currently underway? I understand that this comes around at a relatively inconvenient time, but the unfortunate fact is I'm dealing with a schedule that I have no control over. But, I reserve faith in the people I delegated most of the actions outlined in the staff meeting to, and in Scopes's ability to manage a few projects for development (we should actually see a few neat little things pop into existence at some point, maybe). And I have already, over the past 48 hours, conducted some business in line with the meeting's resolution. Oh, and Witt and Jamini should have fun things to show soon enough. *nod* Beyond that, why am I saying this? Well, because as it stands, I'm the only head of staff remaining for the two main staff teams. Chris made sure everyone knew when he was tabbing out for a bit, so I might as well, specially considering the present situation. If anyone needs me for something, or just wants a chat or something, feel free to BYOND pager or PM me. Just, realize that I might be more off-putting than usual. Anywho, have funzies!

Considering the lengths you went to in order to make members of the community uncomfortable here, and the fact that your apparent apology lacks any sincerity, I'm going to deny the request and lock the thread. As you decide, you are free to appeal the ban, but I advise putting more effort into the matter.

The people in question took them as harassment, and they had prior incidents with you of similar accord to raise up. You were warned, and you even accepted your actions as being out of line. Further more, there's the case of you conducting a personal attack against Nightmare, your banning administrator, and using certain details of his personal life as a platform for attack. That is also unacceptable.

http://puu.sh/hkNkp/5a8dce6df7.png There was also harassment towards Bakagaijin over LOOC/adminhelps. Give me roughly 24 hours to see if I can scrounge up those as well, as my personal library extends to only mid November.

Reason of ban, the extended one: Repeated harassment of players over TS, forums, despite multiple warnings to the contrary. This also includes harassment of players over LOOC. Note that the player was warned to on multiple accounts about his conduct, over the course of roughly 2-3 months.

So. What you're saying is. Chris is literally Hitler?

Scopes is posting cat pictures again...

The thing is. The rules in their current state effectively do protect her actions. There is absolutely nothing written against having an over zealous character (a dick, someone who expertly toes the line), within certain bounds. And there is nothing written about the mentality that a player should have, minus the very first rule. And before we say something else. Remember back during January, December, when you'd see her regularly light up bald security with a laser? Yeah, that went against the rules and that was stopped. As far as my tracking is concerned, that has not happened since we took action against it. But, we don't necessarily broadcast when we take action like that. Unless there's an active complaint and the action to be taken is resolution. But folks don't see it as right. Which is why we're going to have a little talk about'em.

I must admit. I actually have wanted to do this forever, so it syncs to the nearest 30 minutes, but. I just haven't had the moment to push it. Apologies.

That is. Actually a legitimate IC issue, in my opinion. You couldn't have known, and that's fine. Because that's how roleplay is. You only know as much as you know. I really. I really can't explain it in words. But. Yeah, missing information or information that cannot be found out until it has happened. In fact, that's a thing that's also observable in real life, and in my opinion, it fits perfectly fine with a combat situation. Specially when the combat is conducted by individuals who really are not trained nor prepared for the enemy. The two different bombings. First one I'm a little fussy about, because you didn't directly clarify whether or not you're dealing with an implant or an actual bomb. So, if you could clarify, please? The second one was an implant, as much as I was able to gather. And I'm not seeing anything wrong with its utilization. The nuke operative was given an opportunity to cause major havoc in a critical area of the station. From what I understand of the complaint, he was brought there. Ergo, against his own will. That is honestly a golden opportunity for a team member who's already out of the fight to make himself useful. It's. Honestly, the greatest value you can have for an explosives implant (note that those have two purposes: use for blackmail, or making sure that you yourself don't get captured). And consider that some of the syndicate are considered rather extremist, so it'd fit RP as well.

This is pretty much my view on the matter. The staff meeting will gather the opinions and views of the staff on the matter. Once consolidated, those will be presented to the community for input and review.

Let me clarify one thing. And understand my intention is not to discredit your post nor to poke holes in it. I just want to make sure that this point is not misunderstood. FFrances is not in the running for Head Administrator position. No person who is not actively a member of staff will ever be considered for Head Administrator. As it stands, she is an applicant to become Moderator, and the previous Head Administrator. Also, the animal noises on TS are made by me and ChrisCa usually <.< >.>

I am inclined to agree with this. I don't think it's something that can be resolved in one complaint. At least, not properly. But, I do want to keep poking this matter. The Mods and Admins are having a meeting on Saturday to discuss a few things. The incidents in question, and more precisely, how the complaints were handled will be discussed as well. I promise you, the staff are not seeing eye to eye on either account, and as such, we'll be addressing those concerns and problems that they raise. As per every meeting, minutes will be posted as a minimum. I just hope that my move above isn't seen as empty. As I noted in my original post on this thread, at the top of the page, moves like this take planning. Because what's called into question is the modus operandi, and there are flaws pointed out with it. These are not things we are going to change on a whim, nor in the middle of a complaint. Changing this will go through public review, will go through public debate.

Here's a thing. On what grounds should a complaint be acted on? Here's my view. Are the actions in compliance with the rules? Simpler issues can be resolved on this premise. However, a few requirements do exist for reviewing a case on this merit: we need an objective description of what happened and how it happened (this can be rather difficult to attain from a complaint, and thus, may take time to build up through personal interviews). It also requires the issue itself to be clear enough to be attachable to the rules. What was the intent, does that conflict with the rules? This is a fall-back point. Both a defencive and an offensive one. If the issue cannot be directly tied to the rules and a potential failure to abide by them, or the issue is gray enough that it could go both ways, then intent would be taken into consideration. From a defencive angle, it will protect any player who acted out in good/neutral faith, but managed to step on someone's toes. An offensive angle, entering a situation with an invalid intent, one that does not foster roleplay in the manner required by the rules, is grounds for administrative action to be taken against you. It should be noted that distinguishing and reviewing intent can be difficult, specially whenever we're talking about situations where people act out more on adrenaline and make rapid decisions, as opposed to a calmer situation where they actually have time to review and consider the actions that they're about to undertake. This leaves the system with a few vulnerabilities, which I will freely admit. No system is perfect, specially when we're talking about the assessment of people and actions. The main vulnerability to the system is individuals conducting actions wherein, according to point one, they can be swung both way. They can be debated. There exists a valid group of individuals in the world who have the capacity to engineer situations where their back is technically covered by the rules. Referencing my time spent in another community, an ArmA 2/3 one, I can personally say that people like that are extremely difficult for administration to deal with, and are very aggravating to observe, as a bystander. For a time there, I kept saying to myself: "Keep yourself calm, and focus on what's in front of you. Focus on your duties, your actions, your unit. The others will square themselves away." For individuals like that, distinguishing of intent becomes important. The very painful and complicated question of, "Why," arises. And every single answer you get from every single person you ask it from will differ. Objectivity, something which can very easily be employed if the issue is simply about a violation of the rules, starts becoming more difficult to chase and explain. Further more, the call you make on the issue becomes more difficult to explain. Speaking of explaining. We cannot make everyone understand. We cannot offer up an explanation which is universally understood and accepted. Even within a small family, even within the mod and admin team, universal understanding on all issues is not found. We can only offer the explanations for our actions and our decision, explain what we did to reach the conclusion (note that the moment there are issues with this, you should probably contact a member of staff and ask for further explanation). Whether people find it appealing is for them to decide. To actually make every action we take universally acceptable would require double standards and bending of the simpler truth. These are not actions I am willing to take, as they would compromise the integrity of my team. And the final point. Loud opinions. When it comes to certain issues, I refuse to curb to it. I will listen to it, I will take it into consideration, but if there is an objective decision to be made, I will make it over doing what I am asked. Understand that curbing to loud opinion is the same as favortism, it is a form of favortism. If our decisions fall in line with one, then that's acceptable, under the condition that the decision is made with objective reasoning in mind. Not the other way around. This does not mean that we do not listen to opinions and that we don't base actions on them. We do. We really do. But not in all decisions. Changes that concern MO, server operations, rules, etcetera are the main examples where actions are very heavily based off of public opinion. But execution while operating under those established rules is where public opinion takes a step back. Also, public opinion is a clear indicator of a problem being present. I admit as much, I know as much. Issues like that are brought under further review. But note that moving in on them in a manner that doesn't completely alienate everyone takes time. Time in days and weeks. And not because people are lazy, but because a well calculated step carries with it less unneeded crud than a kneejerk, a broken jaw and then a hospital stay wherein the jaw gets fixed (read as: a decision made without consideration, and one that needs to be amended shortly after, as it was not thought out and planned out). I don't know. Ultimately, it's a game about 2d spess. Also, the amount of victimizing from all sides in this thread just makes me want to say, "No." To all of you. And it's making my head hurt.

Ban reason: Coordinated team grief with Napoleon IV. Appeals: http://auroraserver.freeforums.net/ Banned by: YeahChris (a previous Head Administrator) Time applied: Most likely, roughly a year ago, and more, if memory serves

I'm going to throw this up in the air. I need you people to report butts to us. Point one. On the forums, click the red exclamation mark next to "Quote." Or write to a Moderator/Administrator. Beyond that. Think of one question, something that I will raise soon in a more official fashion. How much do you want us to police and enforce a demand for respect? Because there are a good few of you who've made it clear that tone policing in a debate is not wanted. And yet, this group of people does want it. Consider this a warm-up. These things don't improve on their own. The staff will do their part once instructions are decided on in public. But you gentlemen have work to do as well.

I'd argue that as well. If the scientist took every precaution he could, but the experiment still doesn't deliver, it's just a failed experiment. And not neglect of duty.

If you explain the project, intent and benefits, I don't see why they shouldn't approve of it. As long you can outline a direct gain, or at least ensure that there won't be any loss of valuable assets (such as the station, cough), it should be fine. Also, regarding IC, as promised earlier. Conditions that need fulfilling for dangerous experiments: You have RD's permission, potentially the rest of Command Staff's as well You have signed paperwork as is necessary You take the precautions you can to ensure in the safety of the station and rest of the crew Once all three conditions are filled, Command should not curb. They should straighten out their back and outline to whoever is pressing the matter that the test was legitimate, and that they cannot do anything about it, as all of the conditions that Central Command demands (paperwork, equipment safety) are fulfilled. If they still try, guess what. Fire them. There isn't anything more to discuss. The RD and Science team have ensured that they adhere to the rules, and as such, no one can touch them. If anyone tries, then they aren't adhering to their own rules and deserve repercussions in accordance with their own conduct. I've played RD for a good long time. And because I wasn't much of a medical RD, security and IAA didn't really give a crap about my bombs. Engineering did, though. And a lot of the time, they didn't take kindly to it. But the moment they tried anything against it, I simply raised my papers, showed them the signatures and told them to kindly get out of my lane. The one caveat is that you should be prepared to take responsibility for something completely outlandish. Tests shouldn't be conducted in a "Welp, shit happened," manner. Instead, you actually try to assist as much as you can in cleaning up your fuck up, if it does come about. As for this? This is a game. And one of the rules to this game is very simple: if there's a form for it, then you can do it. And if you're good enough, that rule basically means, "You can do whatever you please, until you cause enough pointless damage for Central to take you down." As for an actual response. This is how medical science works, Sue. You cannot do everything in theory without practical testing. And practical testing will include failure. Just a few days ago I saw a news clip about a man planning to undergo a very experimental brain transplant surgery. Do you think he's going to live? Nope. Neither does he. But he still wants to do it. And I don't see no police trying to bust him nor the doctor down. So, the point is. At some point, you need to take the dip. And at some point, someone will die as a byproduct of that. That is how medical science is, that is how it will be. Which is why, as long as the test is well enough explained, it's greenlit.

Gonna poke the OOC side of it in here, will input IC once I have more time. OOCly, assuming none are antagonists, as long as all participants are willing for the right reasons and the research actually meaningful, roleplay wise, we won't really stop you. Scientists and docs have been exploding, desecrating protohumans and willing test subjects ever since the start of the server. And we don't really stop them. The breaks are put on when the research is done without valid reason and usually concerns monkeying, slimeying or slimemanning yourself. Everyone who has been PM-d about monkeying themselves usually says it's because it's their character's dream or some such.