VoltageHero

The round ending ICly is different from it being ended OOCly. Again, as it has been stated numerous times, the round wasn't ended because "the vote didn't get passed, call the shuttle!", which you're deciding to say 'no, that's not true'.

Did...we just ignore the previous statements of the fake singulo release being planned before the bomb attacks, or what? I didn't. It still doesn't justify it. Planning to end the round with a fake singularity release is no different from ending the round right off the bat. It's still ending the round with zero rp. Except it did have RP. Just not for you. The people involved had RP, just like the people on the asteroid had RP. Not everybody was involved in that RP, so does that make it zero RP for those people? Again, I think it's just boiling down to the fact that you wanted the round to go on longer, and are upset that it wasn't able to. That's fine and all, but things happen.

Did...we just ignore the previous statements of the fake singulo release being planned before the bomb attacks, or what? Judging from the responses, it seems more or less that people are just upset that their RP was cut short. That said, that happens to a lot of people, for different reasons. That isn't exactly a reason to file a complaint every time it happens.

If you announce over the comms that you're leaving because you're afraid people might blow you up, that won't end very well. It doesn't matter how "nice" or "honest" somebody is acting. If somebody has a weapon, or a high explosive in this case, you wouldn't take the chance that they're going to just let you go, just like that. In the end, anything can be an act. Taking a risk, and announcing your intentions to leave with a possible threat listening in, isn't the best idea.

I wasn't really going to jump in here, but it seems like it's being pretty one-sided. This is false. Jade was yet again (why this happens a lot, I'll never understand) given somewhat control of Security, and was told to keep things "under wraps" more or less. People supposedly had breached the Security comms, and Rai wanted Security armed, and wait for ERT to come and help. The AI allowed Security to arm up, which three of the four active Security members did. Nothing about the situation was said over comms due to the possible breach, and wording in the PDAs were pretty vague, in case the PDAs had been broken into as well. It was, a 'silent Code Red'. That was the basic gist. The Nuke Ops WASN'T supposed to know a lot of the things going on, so that nothing actually brought danger to the station. Security gearing up was also a safe-guard. Later, Rai called both Nasir (Nightmare's Nasir) and Jade back into the bridge. Basically, Rai told us that she didn't think this was a situation that they were in a situation, that they should really fight. Rai had gotten a message back from ERT, saying they basically couldn't help. Deciding to see what Security could do, I informed her that we only had three active and equipped officers. Against people of an unknown number (a number that kept drifting numerous times), she decided to go to Nasir, and take the 'escape' route. She (if I'm recalling correctly) informed Nasir of the fact that they were going to make a 'false' announcement of the Singulo being released. The AI stated that it could make this announcement, and if Engineering backed it up, that people would believe it. This was to get people out of the station, and away from the people constantly screaming things about Asteroid-land. I told Security to patrol for anybody suspicious, and kinda ignored most of it. Then the station started getting blown up. So no, the shuttle wasn't called because of the vote not passing. I'd really suggest you guys to take a look at both sides (when it isn't black-and-white), before jumping all over something so quickly.

Well, yeah. It's kinda not that good. It's kinda trying to force people to act and behave in certain ways, which isn't a good thing.

(( Jade and Roy are in the same district. Ohno. ))

My only complaint with the flavor text, was the action of forcing somebody to feel a certain way. Wasn't this pointed out as a general no-no? As Blue said, just reword that, and it looks a lot better.

My suggestion was partly a joke, seeing as if they were added, the attacks logs like I made an example of, would be the only thing that happened.

Add in baseballs. (x) hits the baseball! (y)'s stomach is slammed into by the baseball at 95 MPH! (y) collapses in pain!

This. I recall the celebration we had, where everybody went there for a round. That was with the admins setting things up, and even then it got kinda boring after a while. It was just pure chair-RP.

My old quote. But I believe everyone deserves extra chances if they are willing to change. So I support his unban If I've said it before, I'll say it a million times. Sure, giving somebody one or two chances is good, but I'm pretty sure this dude has gotten his chances. From his statement, I'm not sure he completely understands what he did wrong, in the first place.

Pfft. MLA format is the best.

Because it's gank. An antagonist should still make the round fun for the crew, and actually interact with people. Just because it had an effect on everybody, it doesn't mean it's justified. It's the same thing as Nuke Ops who instantly cut comms, and blow up the medbay, then the brig. Sure, you could say it was 'just them being an antagonist', but that point, it would mean the antags can do whatever they want, without fear of repercussion. Meaning, an antag could just welder bomb places because they were being an antag, or pump the station with plasma, because they were an antag. And if that's the case, I think we fell off the correct path somewhere along the line.

Gollee was sorta already setting that up, here. Probably not the same simulator though.

Well, this isn't true. The Waffle Co. attempt went rather well, and the only thing that happened was Security was slightly concerned, due to a lack of actual notification, by Command. The issue with Nuke Ops making events that isn't rooty-tooty-point-and-shooty, is that they need to also be realistic, when calling for responses. The one where people claimed people were on their ship, and were in need of medical attention. There was no proof of the ship even being real. Security and medical went out to look for the ship, and there was no ship there. When it was reported back, the station got yelled at for not trying to save the ship anyways. Then you got the fact that the story changed a few times during the whole ordeal. If you're going to make a different event, don't try and make it off of somebody's hero complex. Make it something that would actually be believable, because in reality, nobody is going to risk themselves for a bunch of random strangers. Nobody is going to jump into space to go arrange a meeting with a hostage that may or may not be there. As stated earlier, if you claim to have taken a hostage, actually have a frigging hostage. You can't say 'the station doesn't play along', and have events where the crew would have to go out of realistic standards to play along. The station isn't a military vessel. It isn't full of ERT. While I agree that players should try and follow along with a Nuke Op's event, the events need to be realistic too.

The issue I have with this, is that Nuke Ops wanted to trade the Captain in exchange for a random miner. At one point, a Nuke Ops replied with something along the lines of "do you value their life above your own?" That would have made zero sense for the Captain to say "oh, okay. Let me just go get traded for a random miner." You don't give up your leadership, for some guy who can be more easily replaced, as mean as it sounds.

I just want to wear the white uniforms. I think those are cooler than the red, but I can't because they're the cadet uniforms. If we go blue, we need something like the cadet uniforms. That's cool, right?

The biggest issue I have with Security during Nuke Ops rounds, is the fact that they don't care about being targeted, from what I've seen. A good amount of the time, an officer will get targeted, and then instantly draw their own gun, or try and run away. It looks a lot of times as if Nuke Ops get their RP attempts ruined, when an officer decides "nope, I'm not going to be a hostage" and runs off, only to return with a Carbine set to lethal. As much as I hate siding in on the "Security trying to be heroes" during Nuke Ops, it does happen, and the officers seem to think they did the right thing.

Well, yeah. That makes sense, but the main issue I had with Delta's statement, is that he seemingly was asking these people to change altogether. I could be wrong in the statement, but that's what I got from reading his previous post.

And is there anything wrong with trying to influence, or in some cases, enforce certain ideals? As Tenenza once told me, but correct me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly and I'm Hitler for doing so. When trying to get people (and characters, too) to improve, you often need to manipulate them to be better people. Is it against what your perception of fun is? Maybe, might be different for others as well. But I want people to actually respect what good security is and recognize that not even security is above the law. And by this ideal and with potentially upcoming developments in terms of heads of staff communicating, we can improve the general atmosphere of the game and properly break down the worst of people and build up their strengths. Carton's great at talking to people, but his anger gets in the way of fucking everything, for example. How would certain people solve this? Manipulation. But by telling him repeatedly, that his values and behavior are shit. But that his strengths are what makes him redeemable and worth building up. How about Davis, then? Well, he's a damn creep that can't damn keep his damn fetishes to his damn self. Better damn tell him to keep his damn thoughts to his damn self or he's damn out. He can be as much of a weirdo as he wants to be, but he's to keep it to himself and keep it professional. Simple, right? Easier said than done, but now we have a focus. An end-game, a goal. The leaders of those problem personnel are to execute whatever means are necessary to help them improve, and if that doesn't work out, then it's very likely not the leader's fault. Not everyone will improve, but it doesn't mean they can't. If they're deciding on not improving, well. Throw the problem out the window and let them be some other company's problem. No. This is not justified in the least. This is asking people to change their RP, because you don't like it. You want players to change because you don't like how they are. You don't like the character, so you want it changed. Telling people they can't role-play their characters a certain way is something that I've said before it just wrong. The server isn't going to be tailored to a certain group, or even just a single person. How do you think the players of Davis and Carton would feel if you just came up and said "ha, you can't role-play this character like this anymore, because a few players don't like it. Change them, or be prepared to lose your job every round". That's not fair to the player, or even the community, if you're trying to shape a server to something you want it to look like. Just "throwing" a player's character out the window because you don't like their attitude work-habit, personality, or other things, no matter which department they belong to is pretty wrong. And, as I stated previously, Security does get arrested for doing dumb things, so most officers are aware that they aren't above the law. Don't play a "it's not realistic" card either, because realism only comes up when it's practical for the person. Either "realism doesn't matter" or "realism does matter". In the end, people can role-play in whatever manner they want. If a character isn't liked, don't interact with them. Nobody is forcing you to play with Davis, Carton, or Rathel. Nobody is forcing your hand to play with them. Because of this, you don't need to try and get people to change their RP to suit your own needs. Edit: @Jamini If the Code Blue issue was the same time as Nasir got arrested, I don't think I was. I was crashing constantly the entire round, and soon after being let out of the locker, I went to the medbay and stayed there, due to crashing. Was going to try and head to the brig, but my internet was being too sketchy. If there is something that happened during the time after I was arrested, (that wan't Nasir's arrest, which I think I understand more or less now), then there may have been a mistake that I did not see.

This is completely untrue. Carton himself has been arrested a few times for doing something amazingly dumb. He nearly got fired the other day for attacking a prisoner by the Captain. The issue is, you don't see it happen, so it doesn't happen, according to you. I have seen other officers, such as the Warden, and even Detective end up in the brig for doing something beyond stupid. What I'm assuming you are trying to say is that officers aren't arrested for their bad attitude because they commonly are arrested for actual crimes, such as petty theft and assault. I don't see where you're seeing "security officers are g No, you can't tell Security to do everything for you, and protect everything you do, and then get upset with a character steps out of line. If Security has to be a by-the-books Security team, then the rest of the station can't be doing anything besides their jobs either. But, oh no. That's not fun, is it? Reading through both Delta and Jamini's complaints, it looks like you both are looking for an ideal of Security, and are wanting the department shaped to your ideals (which I'm assuming is a very complete, almost police-like) security team. As I've said before, the station isn't going to be everything you want. You both are wanting to boost Security up to a higher-standard, and want to place it in a locked-glass, where it protects your own ideal of Security.

Not part of the lore or application team, but I'd suggest you add more flesh to your backstory too. Currently, it's kinda short and doesn't give much detail. The more detail, the better.

I wanted to address this as well. This is pretty much just a "I don't like this character, get rid of them". Why? Because (with respect towards these players), a good deal of characters wouldn't be employed at all, and would be fired before somebody with a bad attitude. People who nearly sexually harass others, people who go around committing small crimes just to do it. People who shut down at the first sign of trouble generally wouldn't really be in Security or Medical (which, has happened with more than one or two characters, surprisingly). So, no. A good deal of people wouldn't employed with the way most players control their characters. It isn't limited to Security. And no, you do play favorites. I have never seen you call out any department, but Security. I can be completely wrong, but this is from personal experience, both on the server, and on the forums. Everything, seemingly according to you, is Security's fault. You have (from what I have seen) bad issues with Security in the past, and now have a bias against Security, which you use quite a bit.

As one of the officers involved, and a player that made an IC complaint and a complaint to the admins, as well as someone who talked to Nightmare OOCly after the incident... Yes, it was an issue. He seemed bothered by it when I was talking to him post-round. Perhaps he wasn't bothered severely, but he was definitely bothered and irritated. As was I. Every round you are going to have somebody who is not happy. Does that mean you type up a complaint about it, every single time? You can't cite the lack of professionalism with one group of people or a department, and decide to ignore the other's, when it fits your own needs. There is no reason for this to really be here, besides "I didn't like the way (x) was handled", and slapping the offending parties and telling them they did wrong.