Skull132

Basically, as was pointed out by others, atmospherics is a rather dangerous tool, and as such, any tampering with it takes the staff's immediate notice. Since you claimed to be familiar with the system, we had little reason to suspect inexperience with the system. Understand that we do help people, but at that point, please ask. Or at least give us a warning that you may not fully be aware of what you're doing, and that we should be expecting something. It'll lower the amount of communication needed afterwards, and make the affair much simpler for all sides to square away. Regardless, the ban has been lifted. Enjoy your game. Locking and archiving.

One fact to keep in mind is that for something like this, there is no "best" solution, and sometimes there isn't even a better solution. Just alternatives. At that point, there really isn't any point in going super complex to appease some intangible idea of democracy. You instead simply operate of off the K.I.S.S. principle. Cause, yeah, we aren't running a state here. We are instead voting for a gamemode on a game about 2d spessmens. Oh, and the caveat to this is that having "Secret" be an option is actually the least democratic thing we could do. As the parametres for that are set by coders, and chances weighed by either me or Scopes - the people who have access to the configuration files.

I don't think NT should be neutral per say. I think they should just want money. Which, you can't really do by fucking everyone over. Nor can you do by being super happy fun-guy towards everyone. You need to find the perfect blend of screwing over and baby shaking.

Ah, the decisions me and YeahChris made. And their effects. Aye, past a certain point in time, we started to actively move away from ChairRP. On a few cases, we may have pushed too hard, but I think you went inactive before those moments. I don't know. You can have character development with action and antagonists. Obviously, some rounds will have to be scrubbed, because Wizards, but I think the end result is more fantastic than a story brought to heed in a sterile environment. Remember when David, Hazel and Mitsui worked security? Those few months were amazing. We had active antagonists, active rounds and plenty of situations where our character's lives were endangered and not everything went as planned (much to my chagrin while I played HoS, mind you). And the character development that stemmed from that, in my opinion, was amazing. Oh and, Hi, and welcome back.

The ban's ancient enough, and no other negative information exists about you. So we'll lift it. Locking and archiving.

Server's accessible again. Just join through the IP or a link, and we're good.

It's actually BYOND experiencing issues. No one can connect to anything as it stands.

The qualities you bring to bare are all present and I have been able to take note of most of them in play. There's something else, though, that keeps nagging away at the back of my mind. It's somewhat difficult for me to word, but I'll try. How do you feel you conduct yourself when your decisions are directly pressured or questioned? Basically, the concern is, at some point you have shown rather aggressively defensive of decisions you believe to be right. Would you consider this observation to be false, or not?

Hm. You're eager and active, and friendly. All of which are positive traits. The one thing that sticks out, however, is your ability to maintain communications in English. The most important skill for a Moderator and an Administrator is their ability to communicate. Looking at yourself, how well do you think you could cope with carrying over your intent clearly and properly, in English? This is more than one's ability to spell or simply make your point clear: what starts mattering is the light in which you make your point clear.

Banning admin in Omnivac. Exact bandate is unknown. And no further notes exist. So. Yeah, I'll lift this. You've been given another go.

Hokay. I just now noticed that this is about a round that I actively modified with admin magix. Well, because of that, the round is my responsibility to a degree, and I did active tabs on it. As such, lemme outline a few things. For the entire duration of the round, I was ghosted about the wizard duo, and as such, was tracking the actions of everyone who interacted with them. I missed a few notes, probably, but did track everything the antagonists were doing. Now, here's what I observed: The security team was not as well staffed as the complaint points it out to be. They literally had a Warden and the HoS doing the job of officers. That was, guarding the two lunatic guests. There was no active combat to speak of for the first hour or two that the lunatic duo was on station. As such, I see no reason to fault the Captain for taking an active role in keeping an eye on the guests. In fact, there was a good 30 or minutes before the initial flashbang went off, that the lunatic duo was guarded purely by the Warden, Kaipov, and the captain was managing other things. Once an active hunt was sparked, with the really minimal size of the Internal Security Department, I cannot fault Bokaza for helping them out. Specially against two individuals, when you take into account that they previously proven themselves capable of willing fireballs into existence that breach the station. Ergo, it's a threat you want to contain ASANow, and a sec team of 2 ain't going to be able to do it. All in all, I cannot find a single fault in Bokaza's captaining for the round, as the event host responsible.

The record /does/ indicate a ban existing, but the database search did not turn up anything. It should restrict you from toggling certain settings in character setup if you are actually still banned from them. So, log on and have a look. If it does exist, adminhelp it and have them check it out from your player panel/jobban menu.

Yes and no. Something that is already in the code (I think, I know I toyed with it, but this was over 9 months ago) is rifles doing more melee damage while held. I think keeping it like that is fine. Adding in abilities for stun from rifle strikes would negate some of the play between different powers. Namely, you have immense capacity at a distance, and even at close range (harm intent + click while right next to someone = point blank shot), but when out of ammo, you should rightfully lose that capacity.

Ban lifted, terms discussed applied. Locking and archiving.

Ban lifted. Locking and archiving.

Right. Currently, we're thinking of swapping out the perma for a 2 month science ban that removes itself automatically. Basically, you wouldn't have to appeal it, it'd get lifted once the time ticks over and you'll be golden. Objections, or shall I run this through tomorrow?

Unless any objections emerge, would an admin please lift this when they're on the server and archive the thread? Otherwise, I'll just do it tomorrow morning.

Actually, this is interesting. You do have a ban logged under your ckey, but it was a week long one and expired at 06FEB2015. Can you get me the exact message that you are being denied with?

As I've explained in the past. To me, the Syndicate does not represent a singular entity, a singular goal, a singular organization. Not even a singular group of organizations. As far as my reckoning goes, the Syndicate has effectively become equal to the press using the word "Terrorist" (Hi NSA, i c u thar) in the current media. It's a buzzword, a blanket statement used to describe any actually organized force that has clashed with major political or economic entities. The Syndicate is like a hive: it's the criminal underground. It has its own factions, its own politics, its own goals. They shouldn't be gunning for one thing in unison, but instead draw a mismatched web of interests and goals. This could very well mean that certain factions of the Syndicate will clash with each other. Some factions would get along better than other. Some factions would have more resources, some less. Some would be sponsored by local politicians, others by corporations, a third set scrounges and manages on their own. They don't hate NT, at least, not all of them. Some do, some factions and groups can very easily be set on trying to destroy the corporation. Others simply clash with it or steer clear. I dunno, that's my ideal of the organization in question.

I'll just politely side-step all of the lore related issues. Anyways, I was balling this idea with Duck. An idea was to nerf regeneration, and nerf infections on the count of that. Infections Slower rate of development Less difficult to kill (for example, they take less ridiculous amounts of spaceacillin to kill) Fix limb revival surgery (on the list regardless, but relevant still) Wounds & Healing Any wounds beyond 15 brute will not regenerate unless you have them bandaged and treated. I'm still trying to figure out how to make them a bit more harder to treat, because with that basic outline, anyone with a single bandaid can still recover from a fully slashed up stomach. Maybe the heavier the wounds get, the more advanced measures of treatment you need (stitches, anyone?). Apply something similar to burn. Burn already doesn't recover without being ointmented, but adding, again, perhaps variable treatment requirement may make it a little harder to recover from. Potentially touch regeneration rates. Again. So yeh, thoughts?

Double-posting because I'm an ass. But, I urge people to consider one more thing, specially as they read my conjecture about DOs. IC consequences need to exist for a valid story to be told. That means, if your character is one to consistently get in trouble in a horrible fashion, where he is unable to protect himself to any degree, he should probably find his position deteriorating. Why? Because that is how the story moves forward. That is progression, storytelling. This gives the players, everyone involved, a chance to develop the characters in play. If a character is being targeted by an IC investigation, he can start finding scapegoats. Maybe make a few deals and have folks lie for him. Maybe someone will sell him out, and he'll end up in further trouble. Maybe he'll then assassinate the sell-out and die in the process. That is storytelling and progression. Otherwise, this will all become very draining, as you deal with the same ass at the same post every day, without change nor progression.

Back in January, the staff side of this was a hot topic. Note that I'm going to be speaking very directly for the Administration & Moderation Staff. For now, I'll leave the lore related answer up to whoever, Jackboot, as that is not my jurisdiction. First off, what the crud do Admins and Mods actively prevent/look out for/enforce? Long list short, objectively and very bluntly unfeasible characters. Unfeasible being defined as a character whose backstory is nonsensical and lacks any grounding in reality. Examples of this are: x-engineered/enhanced characters whose qualities lend themselves to unfeasible (even by future standards) ability, completely impossible age-to-knowledge ratio (see: 19 year old Captains), insane characters, characters with metagaming knowledge. Any character spotted or reported and later found as being like that is subject to administrative action. This also includes terrible flavour-text, mind you. All of those items are, essentially, backed by the rules without any further material needed. This means that Moderators & Administrators should not rely on any other documentation in that respect. Beyond that, Moderators & Administrators also run minor support for lore. Namely, they're the larger brother when needed. When is it needed? Most notably, when lore on the subject exists, is solidified and publically available. This means that, if we see someone who has a backstory about Earth being destroyed, where as our Earth isn't destroyed, we'll give them a tap on the shoulder. But if it's something feasible that is not clarified in our lore (example being a character from a far off colony, or a small space ship, or whatever), then obviously, we will not do anything, provided that the character and backstory is feasible. Ergo, you aren't from a planet of rainbow amazons or something like that. Now, this takes care of the largest group, as it were. What about the gray areas? Hoh boy. Whereas above we were discussing very clear cut and ridiculous situations, here we're going to start looking at semantics. "Could he have bribed his way in?" "The character creates friction to have RP!" Arguments like that. Until they violate the rules, like with self-antagging, which is somewhat common for a specific subset, the Moderators & Administrators, normally, will not pursue the matter actively, until needed. Mostly because doing so requires too much active tracking, so we have another mechanic in place. Another two, actually. Or even three. First off, what can you do about a character that's tiptoeing around the gray areas of badRP? Well, if it's legitimately bad, consistent and just groan-worthy, then you should either offer feedback (player reaction varying) or file a complaint. Yes, we are inclined to not take action upon an initial complaint, instead we wish the issues to be aired, reviewed and place faith in the player to correct their behaviour. If this does not happen, then either we'll note it ourselves, or we hope to receive a follow-on complaint. This indicates that the problem is persistent, and frees us for further, potentially more invasive action with intent to guide and correct. Obviously, assessments being conducted at each step. Secondly, me and YeahChris, with whom I developed the majority of my personal MO on admin issues, usually did not mind people falling into that area for one specific reason. Nine times out of ten, those characters will stigmatize themselves, and will fall victim to that stigma. If there is no redeeming factor to a character of poor quality, then he will be avoided through RP and other actions. Or even lashed back at. Eventually, the player will get tired and either figure out how to fix himself, or just leave. This is best characterized by Vanagandr posting this: The third mechanic are the DOs. Depending on how they're moved from here on out, they have the capacity to start managing the grey area characters with more involvement and back-and-forth. But I'll leave this as a question between the community, the DOs and Hartburry. But now, let me address something from a personal viewpoint. It's about lore and character feasibility. Note that this is all personal opinion and encouragement, so for the sake of being brief, I've confined it to a massive spoiler.

I wouldn't attach the connotation of "being stigmatized" to the matter, mostly because it's a phrase oft misused. I'd like to think that my concern is mainly a prediction based on a chain of past events. And, yeah, it is there. Objectively. And if it keeps being an issue, which it has been up until this ban, then it will need to be dealt with. And from this point onward, just about the only person who can deal with it in a final fashion is you, yourself. You control your actions, set a ticker and stop it. I don't know. That's just about the only thing I've got to say. A suggestion brought up by another mod was a timed ban on RnD jobs, or the job bans being permanent but your right to appeal being held until time X. ---- Off-key note: Should have reported that. This should not happen.

Okay. Long story short, here's the rock and a hard place we are stuck between: you are not inherently someone we want to keep away. Your attitude is, for the most part, fine and while you can get heated in certain debates, you do cool down with time. The crux of the matter goes when you go over the line like this. And we are forced to take action. And we have been forced to, repeatedly. This is not something that we can, basically, have cropping up. An alternative that I would personally suggest is a job ban from RnD. Which is the department you seem to be struggling with the most. But at that point, I need to be ensured that you do not bypass that ban. I know you have the capacity to. And I'm unsure as to how long you can keep away from playing Science (although, maybe I'm wrong on this count). So, yeah, I dunno.

I would recommend reformatting your post to match the template provided. Beyond that, I'll look into the matter tomorrow.