Doxxmedearly

This back and forth has gone on for years. Just put it to rest and get it out. +1

I also agree with the points discussed here, and reception has generally been pretty supportive, it looks like. I have done one part of this in this PR: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/16819 This gives access to port propulsion for engineers, without having to go through atmos. Though, technically, engineers can access the east part of atmos already; those atmos doors to the east and south are set to allow engineer access, whether intended or not. They still can't get to the guts of atmospherics, as the windoor blocks them. There are merits to allowing engineers to keep this access, for repairs. The downside is that they CAN switch pumps to optimize airflow, but perhaps that small opportunity is not such a big deal. Again, my PR does not change this; they already can do it. As an aside, I also agree with locking the tank computers behind atmos access, but that is something a future PR may have to handle, as that is a different discussion than a map change.

Was a blast to code on the dev team, and you were a big part of that for me. Even if you felt like your actual contributions were few and far between, it was always good to meme with you in devchat. Definitely learned a lot about code from everyone, including you, just by reading what you were talking about with others. Sad you're outta here but was glad to be part of the team while you were here. Really appreciated the things you had to say. Seriously, best of luck with whatever you do next, even if it's nothing. Been a pleasure.

Echoing Matt's thoughts here. Personally I think the lore for it should just be ripped out, and should have been from the moment it was removed mechanically. Re-adding it just re-adds all the old problems we had and cheapens deaths (Not only for characters, but for important figures, as Matt stated). This really just complicates it for no reason in my opinion; we've been better off without it present on-station. Voting for dismissal.

It's lore-driven and intentionally split. Just as species have mechanical differences, corps can, too. Calling ZH objectively superior in its department is such a lukewarm take I don't even know where to start. It does not unbalance things to let medical and science people have their company-specific cool flashlight eyes. Mountains out of molehills, etc. Lore backs it, and it represents the company, which you've stated you wanted to see in your OP. Voting for dismissal.

In a vacuum, by themselves, I don't see mechanical skills as that much of an issue or antithetical to RP, but if they were implemented it would probably look different from Bay. Polaris's traits aren't bad either. That said, I don't really think we need to go this route. If we did, they almost certainly would be tied to a character and not a job. While Prate may have a point in it reducing bwoinks on one side... On the other, you'll probably have to do just as many for characters with extremely weird/high skillsets; either way, people are going to go through hoops to justify their skills, and if we had mechanical implementation, they'd just have more power before brought to staff's attention. I wouldn't trust half this playerbase with a tangible bonus to skills, because frankly we already have a problem with powergaming, and I'd prefer not to enable them mechanically if it can be avoided.

Voting for Dismissal. Prate summed up the reasons pretty well, and I agree that it seems unnecessary. They're servants of the station, literally; they're bound to it and restricted with laws. They're listed and treated as equipment, tools to ensure it runs smoothly, and there isn't a good reason ICly to restrict the access. Additionally, I don't feel like there's really that many problems with their all-access OOCly, aside from maybe being swamped with requests, which is just sometimes something that happens in rounds. In my experience, most egregious abuse of this is so few and far-between that moderation can handle it like any other problematic player.

Disagree. Staff don't owe an explanation; as staff, they're trusted to handle tickets, investigate properly, and dish out punishment if necessary. In my experience if they want you to do anything further they will ask you, such as "handled, ahelp if you see X doing Y again." If the staff member wants to tell someone what they did, that's their prerogative, but making it a requirement just heaps on more responsibility for frankly no reason beyond to sate a player's curiosity. If you don't think they did it properly or seriously, there are staff complaints. It's unfair to assume that staff did not handle something seriously or investigate something thoroughly because they don't tell you what they did; they have no obligation to defuse whatever skepticism the ahelping player has about how they did their job.

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/11957 And this likely as slow as it's going to go. Yes, you can't get sober in twenty minutes after a bottle of whiskey IRL. But you also can't recover from surgery the second you're closed up, or walk with a new prosthetic limb without rehab, or recover from 5% brain activity in fifteen minutes and be totally functional, or get a necrotic infection in 45 minutes. There's realism sacrifices we need to make because this is a game and a round lasts two hours. The point is as useless as it is common. We did initially wonder if sobering should be slower last time we addressed it, and erred on the side of caution. Since it still seems to be moving too quickly, I've made the linked PR.

Do you have any other examples of spritework? I think the amount you've contributed so far in PRs is lacking, even if the quality is good. I'd be interested to see other examples.

You've no experience with lore, which to me is a red flag for such an important position. Your tenure as an admin was frankly baffling to me due to the problems with snark mentioned by other responses here, among other reasons. I won't go into details, since this is not a mod app, but suffice to say I don't trust you in a high-ranking staff position anymore. Matt already touched on your tendency to criticize unfairly and without any tact. I share the same concerns. I cannot support this application. Regardless, good luck ^^

Seems good. It's just RP fluff now, so as vis said, we don't have to worry about withdrawal effects and such. Going to second removing the three Vis mentioned as they do provide mechanical benefit. Chemist is one of my favorite roles. It doesn't remove all that much RP; they still need to see us for other medications/scripts. It's not a whole lot missing, and if they want to forgo the medication in the loadout to have more interaction with chemists, they can. As these are 100% RP fluff, I'm good with adding them. People who want to RP with chemistry can still do so.

You had one already and lost it (presumably) to administrative action. I'm very familiar with your laundry list, as well as your OOC conduct. I'm not impressed with either. You're as abrasive and quick to get into fights as you were years ago. We were both on command trials at the same time back in 2018 and I remember you being frustratingly unable to communicate with as fellow command (Which was not helped by you going afk for long periods of time in several rounds). As well, there are several people in this community that I think are more here to robust, valid, and win than they are to drive an INTERESTING round, and your name is among them, given the consistent behavior I've seen from you since the 3 years I've been in this community. And your list of administrative actions doesn't incline me to believe that I'm being terribly unfair here. Rather than ask you what's changed, I'd rather know what you think you'd like to add to rounds as command. Your definition of roleplay's a fine one; I'd like to see you uphold it, even if a round is on extended or maybe some antags are trying a more peaceful gimmick idea. Are you interested in driving such a story? What are your thoughts on what command as a whole can do better in rounds? For now, I can't say I'd support you on a trial. As always, I'd prefer to be proven wrong in this instance. Either way, good luck.