LorenLuke

I'm proud to announce these features (not so obviously) exist. https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/blob/b7d9339c830dfeb718ae54df071a6c21a63f38b5/code/modules/projectiles/gun.dm#L390 When you point blank someone, with a neck grab, it does a whopping 2.5x base damage, allowing you to deal 150 base damage with a .357. A headshot of that value, assuming it wouldn't kill them outright, would immediately give them shrapnel, 150 brute, hard crit, a broken skull, and a large caliber bleeding head wound.

When 3 fluid ounces of the active ingredient in bleach is enough to be lethal to a 100kg person, it's very, very, very lethal. You now know this. If I were to say (with similar capitalization) GO PLAY IN TRAFFIC, JUMP OFF A BRIDGE, GO STEP IN FRONT OF A TRAIN, SLIT YOUR WRISTS, EAT A GUN, etc., I personally (maybe not everyone) see no difference between that and your statement of 'FUCKING KILL YOURSELF'. It absolutely is. 'Go do this extremely lethal (or at very least if it doesn't kill you, will severely maim you) thing' isn't a nice thing to say to someone. Period, full stop, end of story, 'Why are we having this discussion?'.

I did, and what I saw is this- >Statement that any comment you had made, even if hyperbolic, was sincere >A quote >A hyperbolic statement to someone in which you tell them to do something (multiple times) which would be almost invariably fatal. And then later >It was a joke. There's no transition, no reframing, no consideration, and certainly not even time passing (As both your messages and theirs are timestamped with the same minute), where you go from 'if it didn't sound like I was serious, I was' to 'Go kill yourself'. I don't care if you're the headmin, but the enforcement of the rules might (sad reality); if I were to tell someone to kill themselves in the discord, or on the forums, I'd be out on my ear so damn fast. And I doubt if I used the excuse 'Oh, come on... It was a JOKE! The person should have messaged me first before ahelping/going to a mod', I also guaran-damn-tee you that shit would fly about as well as a depleted uranium glider without wings. Ya done did something that would have gotten anyone else banned, pointedly speaking, so why are you trying to hide behind an excuse that would never work in a ban appeal?

I agree with the above, as otherwise it's being said that the jobs mutes are most qualified for say 'What'll it be?', 'Can I take your order?', and 'Would you like fries with that?' which seems to be quite the opposite of a qualification. I think everyone agrees that botanists, janitors, cargo techs, and that ilk would be fine, and that heads, security, and medical personnel wouldn't. The thing that may be overlooked are those that fall in-between. Engineering primarily responds to calls (which mute people can do), rarely has need to broadly communicate to more than one person (which PDAs do) and are qualified to communicate in space without radio by any type of sign language. Research personnel after much the same way. A xenobotanist doesn't need to say too much, an engineer can easily send a PDA message to their boss, another head, or even just a random crew member or two to have them announce what may be needed over radio. So where do people think these 'middling amounts of talking' requiring jobs fall, in terms of necessary qualification?

I only bring this up because you then and here acknowledge that, under the rules as written, a deliberate choice to disregard the rule with regards to respecting staff/others. It's not 'Don't be a dick unless they are one to you' it's just 'Don't be a dick.' Their behavior is on them, for sure, but this isn't about them; it's about you. You made a choice, chips fall where they may as consequence. If you don't see that as something done wrong on your part, then I'm not sure how anyone else's argument can be addressed in your favor with regards to their concerns.

I know you have to warn me for it. While I'm not generally one to ascribe intent, I did notice this in the complaint thread, which strikes me as a bad-intent skirting of discipline policy insofar of, 'I know I was rude and it's against the rules, but I've not been warned before so this means the first one is free' as some sort of barrier against such displays of attitude against staff. Beyond this post, I've nothing to say other than it seems that such attempts are to bend what they can to their advantage as best they can to justify (or at least avoid punishment) for known breaking of rules.

Not at all. More directly answering the Orginal Post, which existed some six hours before you decided to dial it back. This thread was conceived as 'I don't like backpacks, let's get rid of them' not 'Hey, what do you guys think of these backpack resprites?' And I said- you want to resprite them? That's fine. You want satchels to be the default? That's fine. But if you are truly mystified at how the reaction that you got at your original suggestion, I'm happy to lay it out for you again. And if you're going to ask how you choosing to not wear a backpack affects others, again it does not. But as said before- Of which they may very well not like.

I trust you see how that can be confusing to determine it to be anything other than 'remove backpacks'. And that's the point- I can get behind the satchel being the default. And this isn't 'choosing not to wear them' as that can be done in game with less than half the griping, and is something many players have surely done without a peep. But your advocating for the removal of backpacks (or for that matter, any resprite) affects everyone who uses a backpack. Which you might have noticed, for all the people who 'don't care', there seems to be a lot of people immediately up in arms about it. If you want to make satchels default, fine. If you want to resprite backpacks, fine. But don't act like the phrase 'Hell, let's remove them alltogether. No more backpacks!' could reasonably be interpreted to mean 'I want to fix their sprite, not actually remove them'.

Look out, he has pictures! In all seriousness, it's like... Three clicks. Maybe four. It's like lamenting about how if there's no job when you ready, it selects one randomly- Cool, you got an opinion, now there's something very simple you can do to fix it that literally everyone else who doesn't want a backpack does.

If I die to a griefer, am I dead for good? While there exists a non-zero chance of my life being ended in real life by a deranged lunatic with a heavy chunk of metal (or more likely, a smaller chunk of metal that's very sharp, or one that can properly even smaller chunks of metal really, really fast), the amount of spontaneously homicidal psychopaths per capita, antags even excluded, is probably at least an order of magnitude higher than the common populace. So this proposal states, that it is obligatory that should such a fate befall me by a bad actor, that my character should disappear forever, even if that person gets punted from the server so hard, the time space continuum breaks and causes the film 'Das Boot' to retroactively become a blockbuster documentary about how hard that person was kicked from play. Hard pass on that one, and that's not even addressing the myriad of issues of things like, 'you're on the asteroid with no air and in hard crit, but alive when the server resets, so what happens to you then?', etc.

Besides marking patient zero and providing a narrative link, does the trigger object have any mechanics with it, once in-game?

I didn't say you breathe in external atmospheric air, but just that the pressure that the Life() proc (or whatever handles lung damaging) uses when determining whether to shred someone's insides is based off the maximum of the two. If you have no internals, then that's the maximum of 0 and Atmo. If you have internals, then it's the maximum of the internal pressure and the atmospheric pressure. Having lung damage being from a pressure gradient would be a solution, I just worry about edge cases of having your lungs sucked out through a breath mask when you open a low pressure bottle.

Three code changes- Make it so that lungs rupture with a greater than 90kPa difference between breaths. Make it so that lungs use the max of exterior atmo and internals pressure in use for the pressure calculation. Make an exception for pressure suits.

Worth noting then is that handcuffs (which are not inordinately difficult to obtain) constitute a significant resist time. What happens if someone has handcuffs on and is spiked? Which would you resist out of, first? Would you even have a chance of surviving on your own? This, I'd be okay with.

IIRC, the problem in so doing is that it's an instant kill. One bad disarm against you in the freezer and it's basically death, if that's the case.

I know I am. But my recollection of that is that it's laggy, hence wondering if something like that without lag even possible. That said, it adds the 'run in terror/panic' effect, provides flavor for what's affected (and also affecting non-mobs), and does the same thing (ICly) as the nuke would.

Possible alternative, don't know how lag heavy it might be- Just make an atmosphere-blocking 'bluespace' tile that replaces the tile it's on. This slowly spreads from its tile until it's surrounded by others (on all sides), then winks out into nothing. Make it travel through walls/doors more slowly, and have the weird gibbing/matter destabilization effects only be at random within a tile or two. So you have this relatively quickly (2/3 walking pace) expanding, all-consuming thing. Code wise, each one can just... Look for turf/simulated around it, change it, then when it's surrounded by bluespace turf, change to a different tile with just a space appearance (saves on processing power). Touching the bluespace tiles means instant death. And it eats everything. Suffice to say, if you have a nuke, it's basically doing the same thing as this.

Why not have a set of canned phrases which generate randomly and are assigned to the player? 'The <person> in <the room/department>...' e.g. 'The janitor in Medbay...', 'The detective in Maintenance...', 'The Captain in the Library...', etc. 'There's <a hazard> in <the room/department>!' e.g. 'There's a fire in here!', 'There's a breach in Cargo!', 'There's a blob in Engineering!' Similar stuff to dreams, just generated to be slightly more logical (and obviously, this phrase wouldn't change over the round).

So one is oversight and one is paperwork? The question becomes two-fold: OP appears to levy the issues of 1) Nobody plays it, 2) It interferes with roleplay in the performance of IAA duties. With regards to these issues, why would someone (besides current IAA players) want play a paperwork-heavy role? If this paperwork role is unfilled (presumably having IDs falling to this role as stated), would the responsibilities of the paperpusher fall to the other? What difference would there be between this oversight role picking up slack, and just merging HoP with IAA? Which of the split roles is higher in the CoC? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea as a solution, but there's still a lot questions that I have.

I'm curious what plans you had in mind.

I find it interesting that the occurrence of extended in secret is viewed as some sort of waste or annoying or somesuch, but look at what's happening- You walk into a sandwich shop and tell them 'surprise me'. You become upset by the fact they've given you chicken nuggets in a sandwich shop, paying no nevermind to the fact that you're surprised at such an outcome (and pleased as punch, having got exactly what you asked for), instead of annoyed. I don't understand why this is so negative, really. Sec patrols the whole time, instead of being "guaranteed" nothing will happen (save for spiders or somesuch). Everyone else goes about their business doing jobs and reacting organically to conflict. People roll with IC conflict to extreme degrees more because they have no certainty that the attack isn't antagonist motivated (versus mashing F1 in an extended round and mentally preparing to watch for a changeling in the voted changeling round). Secret extended is, in my opinion, the absolute bread and butter of SS13 mayhem in purest form, as people's paranoia become the antagonistic force to drive the round, all while banking on the surety of the presence of some then-absent antagonist. Nothing else can capture that as much as SExtended. Hard no on removing Secret Extended from me.

Just a point of curiosity regarding this, if there is no need to do so, what then is their responsibility beyond 'develop PRs to custom tailor the game to their wants and needs'? How is there proof, without interaction, that they've not ignored feedback versus having evaluated it fairly and chose to not Incorporate it, especially if they do not reply? If two developers create an unspoken agreement to always merge each other's PRs, what does that do for any feedback, since conditions of merging are met and no discussion is had? In either of the above cases, would it not be negligent of developer staff to not, at least on some level, engage with feedback?

>Small or professional While the former is, barring some sort of cap on membership to any 'kool kids klub', out of one's hands the second one certainly isn't. Is it professional right now? Maybe not. Is there anything preventing staff from treading in that direction? Only hearts and minds. It's there any downside to becoming more professional? Possibly, but none that I fathom that wouldn't be outweighed by the benefits reaped. >will We have situations presently where people will get charged up, and act or speak in ways that end up being in violation of one or more rules. Staff, I would hope, do not allow this fact of a player's emotional involvement coloring their attitude to prevent those actions and words from being moderated. I can invoke mention of several discord and player bans that were applied because cooler heads didn't prevail. And even an incident where no punishment is given, that doesn't mean a lack of action or administrating was had. So, I ask you directly- what does such a policy hurt, and why are your statements indicative of an apologist for staff inaction, when the concern raised can be tied to clearly evidenced issues that would be solved by implementing such a policy? What is the downside but that staff, heaven forbid, might be made to be slightly more accountable for moderation than before?

The biggest issue is there use of language which can be considered a 'value judgement'. If you describe any idea as 'retarded' (or for that matter, 'autistic', 'idiotic', 'asinine', 'stupid') it immediately is interpreted that those who agree with such an idea also are the above for doing so, or at the least, the creator of whatever the concept or idea happens to be. You might say 'How can I express my thoughts when saying so is so clearly fact?' Then describe what the PR or concept does/n't do. Value judgements cannot do this. A PR that is objectively bad at solving some issue that it was designed to solve can't be 'retarded' at doing so, despite it being objectively bad at accomplishing its task. An idea that fails to resolve a conflict does not do so 'stupidly', it just merely doesn't. So if you want to really want to clamp down (possibly excessively so) on preventing being a dick with regards to PR feedback or forum feedback/discussion, remove 'is' statements, as it's impossible to make value judgements without something 'being something'. But one can always express bad (or good) concepts by what they do. 'Giving the detective rubber bullets is a bad idea' vs 'giving the detective rubber bullets will not solve the problem you think it will.' 'Adding a third synth slot is a good idea' vs 'Adding a third synth slot will allow the AI to project greater functional presence into the refund and increase synthetic RP between stationbounds.' Even harsher and more abstract criticism can still be levied: 'this idea is fucking idiotic' vs. 'I don't see any upside to implementing this.' As for administrating such a(n admittedly rather excessive) policy, the line is very clear- no 'is' statements/value judgements.