witchbells

I don't feel confident about lifting this ban just yet. You have a history of concerning behavior, and while your lucidity in this complaint gives me high hopes, I think you should improve your play to a much better degree for me to feel comfortable lifting this. I would wait another few months until you make another appeal. Additionally, I recommend you take the way you play into serious consideration. You're noted for your behavior quite often, but this complaint makes me think you can improve on this. Appeal denied.

Because I was corrected. It was mentioned for the sake of transparency. I don't know what your intention is with this addition other than to argue semantics. It is true that I have been contacted by multiple people who have issues with your playstyle. I obviously have no way of accessing your discord messages to cross-check if any of these people were the same person. I have no comment on the fact that you have only been contacted by one person taking issue with the character so far. I will reiterate my previous point. If your character has no issue with passing a fluency text in order to work on the station, then they should have no issue with basic commands.

The other staffmembers have not told me that you, specifically, were not breaking the rules. They clarified the rules on fluency, which I still believe your character is breaking. I will try to elaborate. One would hope you weren't doing so intentionally, however, I've received multiple reports from people (who I have not revealed, and will continue to not reveal for their sakes, as is custom) who were very upset with your character's level of fluency that is, in your words, to provide "fun IC conflict." Regardless of your intentions, it is terribly convenient that your character can pass entry exams to work, yet does not understand simple requests like "stop doing that" - which is why I've gotten people who are very upset with the character, some of which have actually contacted you over it in the past. The crux of the issue is that if your character passes a basic fluency exam, characters should not have to put in effort to get your character to understand a simple "no." This leaves an impression of your character that is either not as fluent as you would have me believe, or that you are deliberately making the character dense in order to create conflict, which I reinforce, many people are not having as much fun with as you imagine.

I stand by my judgement on your character's fluency. While I've been corrected by other staff members on the fluency issue itself, it revealed another problem within the problem - I've received multiple reports, both during that round and after you publicly posted this complaint about Jrihrarmrra in regards to you using the character's fluency as an excuse to purposefully mess with people., leading to the belief that you're using your characters fluency as an excuse. You claim that your character is fluent enough to pass entry tests, yet has trouble with simple commands like "stop" and "no" when the character's behavior inevitably infuriates people. I have no intentions of recanting my judgement as of yet.

It's passable, but it does nothing to illustrate that you've changed. I contacted you about a violation of one of our most simple rules, and your reaction was to refuse a name change, argue with staff, and log off. You display zero regard for the rules of our server and your ban appeal, where you've shown no acknowledgement of the rules you've broken nor an effort to improve upon this aspect, enforces this. I am not unbanning you at this time. Appeal denied. Locking and archiving.

Bad luck has very little to do with you doing what was almost exactly what you were warned for prior. Just six days ago, even. I need you to understand that you're displaying a pattern of behavior here. This has nothing to do with poor luck, this is a poor decision. This is not something that barring yourself from antagonist roles will fix. Escalation is not a straight line from Point A to Point B, but a sliding scale of sorts, and you must use the scale to decide the proper plan of action. Your objective is not to reach a high level of violence in an allotted amount of time, is what I'm trying to get at here.

Please use the format, which I have linked here. Right now, I have minimal interest in overturning this ban. You seem to have little regard for the rules of our server and seeing this, I'm not sure if it will change.

This seems rather pointless, for instance, I can't remember the last time a character refused conversion and lived to tell the tale, on account of them being murdered to death for resisting.

Oh, no. This isn't a good idea at all. Forcing people to play antag when they don't want to results in a number of things happening, 1. They will immediately cryo. Staff can simply tell people not to do this, which leads to my next point. 2. They will either throw the round or be a pisspoor antagonist. People will put effort into things if they care about them, which is why we implemented antagonist preferences and the vote draft in the first place. Forcing players into a certain role (a role that requires responsibility and skill at the game, at that) will result in little good being done other than a sense of short-lived satisfaction for whoever converted the poor sod. I also wholeheartedly agree with Danse's statement on player agency. Just use the darn sacrifice rune if they won't cooperate.

Your notes are mostly harmless and I really believe you can use this as a chance to improve your play. I have no problem with appealing this, and I assume you understand that returning to your previous behavior really won't fly after your appeal. That said, appeal accepted. Locking and archiving.

More words because I'm bad at making lots of them. I hope I can clear up some of the ambiguities of my proposal. When I say that the project functions as a thinktank, I mean that it's a collective of people sharing their research for the good of the field itself and for synthetic lifeforms. Some examples of things their members would tackle are things like expanding the senses of synthetic lifeforms, like olfactory receptors, coatings for shells with haptic feedback, porous cooling systems, gustatory receptors, artificial musculature instead of actuators, and various other experiments that today would fall somewhere in line of "theoretical bullshit science." It takes a lot of work on the programming fronts to make all of this work, and even more so to work together, and members of the project have produced multiple variations of a software that acts as a "nervous" system, linking all of these senses together. This is what I mean by "bridging the gap" - all research affiliated with the project can, in some way, benefit the idea of making synthetic lifeforms function more like humans, or unathi, or what have you. Due to the nature of this research, organics have benefited from it, too - developments have been made in treating nervous disorders and prosthetic limbs/organs. I also like to think of the organization having somewhat of an "open source" policy, which is why I briefly talked about how it can be difficult to claim some aspects of research as your own, but members of the project usually know what they're getting into upon entering it - if information is freely available, it comes with the assumption that your research will be freely available, as well, all for the betterment of science. This means that their members might have difficulty in research positions in mega corporations, and may be more secretive about their findings if they haven't given it to the project yet. It's generally frowned upon if members of the project patent their research, and those who do this will lose favor with the project over time. Yeah, I can see this! An organization like this needs lots of funding, especially since their work isn't being made for the sake of filling already fat pockets.

Type (e.g. Planet, Faction, System): Organization. Describe this proposal in a single sentence (12 word maximum): Group that sets out to bridge the gap between organics and synthetics. How will this be reflected on-station? In concept, I want it to be something that characters can work towards in the background and connect with. We have a number of groups in our universe, but I don't feel like there's anything pertaining to the study of artificial intelligence like this. And, of course, the possibility of affiliated paraphernalia for characters to carry around. Does this faction/etc do anything not achieved by what already exists? I feel like there are a number of organizations aimed at researchers and science types in the lore, but I feel like this would fill a wonderful scifi niche that we're currently missing. Why should this be given to lore developers rather than remain player created lore? I want everyone to have access to this idea. Do you understand that if this is submitted, you are signing it away to the lore team, and that it's possible that it will change over time in ways that you may not forsee? This is something I want to be available to all players to play with, including the lore team. I think the existence of such an organization could offer a lot to the ongoing stories of our universe. Long Description: "The Bridge Project" is a thinktank that functions loosely as an organization and is open to AI researchers, programmers, and roboticists of all colors who have an interest in bridging the gap between synthetics and organics. There aren't many perks to being part of the project except for the research that contributors share with eachother, but it requires no membership fees and accepts people of any background, making it accessible to everyone from notorious scientists to new students. Members claim that by sharing research and resources among themselves, their own research projects flourish. However, the nature of the organization makes it so that it can be difficult to claim some aspects of research as wholely your own. The organization's standing fluctuates between systems - while viewed as outright dangerous by the Jargon Federation, Dominia, and parts of Sol, it enjoys favor in Tau Ceti thanks to how research is shared between members, leading to strides in AI technology. Despite this, openly admitting membership or praising the project can be seen as a dangerous act in some places, and some of its more prolific members can have issues when traveling.

I understand completely how such an incident can come off from a first look, and how such chaos on the station influenced the decision, even with the supporting testimony, but such convictions are not to be made lightly. I'd like to expand on this a bit. Yes and yes. This is the crux of the issue I'm trying to get at here. An attempted murder/murder conviction and requires a much more nuanced approach from both an IC and an OOC perspective. Such a conviction needs to be handled tactfully and investigated thoroughly before dropping the metaphorical hammer, and this is what I attempted to convey to you through adminhelps. The incident you're talking about was handled ICly, in round, and was indeed completely insane but I don't find it incredibly relevant to this issue here.

I understand why you might have found the tone objectionable, but I was dealing with multiple tickets for at the time for two separate issues, and opted to use a more directed approach. You were being accused of lying to administration - by the person who was ahelping. It is not shown in the note because thankfully, you weren't. It simply seemed like you got the wrong impression of a situation. Here's the note I left you.

The wording can certainly be changed. I will not be removing the details of the substance (calling it toxic, specifically), or the round type from the warning, and I will add it that it was done through the merchant. I also apologize for calling rewriter alcoholic. Pretty dumb mistake, and I probably could've just doublechecked.

Locking and archiving.

I'm glad you understand where you went wrong. However, I will not be overturning the ban.

It's all correct from what I can tell, yes.

I was told by a player in medical that the medical bay was broken open and those inside slaughtered by a cultist and a juggernaut. At no point did the player specify that one of you was more violent than the other, and in fact, your name was the first I was given. The fact that you two did this to medical with little to no provocation leaves a very, very bad taste in my mouth. You have a history of playing over-aggressively and have been noted on it in the past, and similarly, I've noticed that you're developing a pattern of pushing blame away from yourself, whether it be by blaming other players or blaming lack of context for incidents in question, and I'm seeing it all throughout this post. At no point do you accept the possibility you've made a mistake. You have power over the juggernaut. If the juggernaut was disobeying you, you could have ahelped and stopped the issue right there, but you chose not to. I'm happy to give any more information to the staff member who oversees this.

Sorry for the late reply! Your incidents are pretty innocuous, to the point where I really don't mind overturning this. I can easily see you improving and coming back from this, but this means that you do still have improvements to make. I do think you still display LRP behavior in your play. I recommend keeping this in check if you don't want a repeat of these events. Appeal accepted. Locking and archiving.

this is literally just cargo