Jump to content

nursiekitty

Moderators
  • Content Count

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nursiekitty

  • Rank
    Captain
  • Birthday 14/03/1995

Personal Information

  • Interests
    scarecrow, jonathan crane, master of fear, lord of despair, duke of dread, prince of palpitations, savant of screams, marquis of the macabre

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey
    nursiekitty

Recent Profile Visitors

1,181 profile views
  1. I don't believe under any circumstances that we should be removing a learning role. We have two cadet slots in each department for any player to learn the role, but first and foremost these slots are meant for new players. I will not, for any reason, support subjecting anyone unfamiliar with our server to the cynical lens with which we look at security v. antagonist relations. It's unfair on an OOC basis and sets a horrible precedent for anyone visiting our server. The fact that I've heard the intended effect of this is to "give security less bodies to work with" is absolutely fucking insidious. Nor will I support the removal of security's departmental channel. Very few people would suggest we would remove any other channel, and yet it's being seriously considered here, again in an attempt to place an unfair restriction on security. I won't spend long waxing on why weakening communication is a terrible idea, in all aspects (especially when communication is such a terribly important skill that staff pick up very quickly) even when I've read suggested alternatives such as "bootleg" handheld channels and PDA messaging. My initial concern about setting an unfair precedent that's cruel to players rings true here as well. These changes gimp the department to an unreasonable amount that make it an unenjoyable role that's hostile to the players that enjoy it, both new and old. My initial concern with department security is that we would be using it to cripple the department, and I find myself boiling over that concern yet again. If the issue is "antagonists are too easy to catch," then perhaps we should admit to ourselves that antagonist is a role that takes skill.
  2. Herein lies the issue I spoke to you about. It was not at all reasonable or fair for you to rush someone like this who was holding a hostage. Regardless of how your character feels about the hostage, this situation could have very quickly gone south should something wrong occur. You are obligated to be aware of this. Behavior like this is not acceptable, especially in regards to someone who's been here for quite a while now. This is not real life. This is a game, where we're obligated to consider fairness towards other players, good sportsmanship, and story building. With this in mind, what you did was not fair by any means to the antagonist, nor was it your place to do so, and most certainly warranted a verbal warning. As far as I know, we have a precedent of contacting players who rush into hostage situations (flashbang or no) because of these reasons, and I've yet to hear otherwise from the other staff members. If these incidents are going unpunished, it's a different problem, but not one you're at fault for. I'm withholding most of my judgement of these actions IC because I know of Salvation's role in the Trinary, however, we still have rules against the reckless endangerment of other crew as part of our "sane character" rules. To clarify, you were given a verbal warning for your actions. Not a formal one. I apologize if there was any confusion.
  3. I'm in support of this as well, and I'm also very disappointed with Wezzy's conduct in this situation.
  4. I prefer Brain's (that's your name now) sprite because it looks like it has more detail without being over-designed compared to the other one which looks a bit bland and lacks depth. Also, it's purple.
  5. Radical. The ban has been lifted. Locking and archiving.
  6. I'm happy to remove this. However, I need you to keep in mind that you're essentially on a probation period. If you're caught breaking another one of the simple rules (poor roleplay, screwing around with SSDs, etc) this ban will be reapplied. Is that understandable?
  7. An average joe crew member suddenly having to make the ability to make an announcement, which would either involve breaking into the bridge, building an illegal console, etc, is indeed hostile and subversive activity.
  8. No rules were broken! I'm really glad you linked that page. Let me show you something on it.
  9. Garnascus's ultimatum says as much, and no note was made.
  10. If Garnascus believes that your captain did nothing wrong in this scenario, I will respect his decision and have no further issue.
  11. That is irrelevant. This thread is not about IC policy. I recall you telling me just as much in the ahelp. I hold regardless that the riot armor should be reserved for characters who would be on the front line of assault, which is, again, not the captain. I was in the round and I am aware of what happened to your character, but my stance remains the same.
  12. My stance has not changed. Riot armor is for people on the front line, and the only people who should be on the front line are security officers, and on occasion, the head of security, and never the captain. You would have been perfectly safe with the bridge locked down, and should not have been hoarding a set of riot gear for your own use when there could have very well been an officer who needed it more, regardless of what had been claimed or not claimed by that point. I understand that your character was frightened, but captains are loyalty implanted and would still hold policy in higher regard.
  13. Present discussion encourages me to weigh in on this. The behavior being discussed here is strikingly similar to my experience with you that prompted me to write my first player complaint. You act on a grudge you have towards another player or character in the game and then try manipulating the truth in an attempt to get away with it. What you did here was blatant, cruel, and I agree that it was incredibly unconducive to roleplay. To hear from Kyres that you've been doing this a lot, apparently, is especially troubling to me. Then you accuse other people of holding grudges towards you. Despite the fact that you and I, presumably, worked amicably in the lore team together and I presumed that all was well and good - you've done this to me as well, and I have no reason to believe you wouldn't do it to other people. Nobody in a leadership position should be an example of such petty and manipulative behavior. I do not recommend you get a command whitelist, not when you're repetitively an example for behavior like this.
  14. guys that was a joke i just wanted to tell everyone that runescape's soundtrack was and still is full of bops

    1. Scheveningen

      Scheveningen

      🗣️📣 "bop"

×
×
  • Create New...