LorenLuke

If people vote for extended, why is there a need to throw in dollar-store antags into the fray? All these 'actors' appear to be are bargain basement antags without license to instigate conflict. Make them an event if you want, but if you need to spice up things in the roleplay-only mode in your roleplaying game on a 'high' (quality and amount of) roleplay server, I dunno if it's being done correctly.

Don't be a dick. We're all here to have fun, not fight and argue with assholes. Don't ruin the game for everyone else, and use common sense. This includes anything from attacking other people, starting arguments over nothing, etcetera. Note that this rule applies primarily to OOC, LOOC, AHELP, and DEADSAY.

Right, but rather than have to click a button (or several buttons, if it's radio, walking, and items), or ctrl+1 to not shoot or any other intent to shoot, target than have to go for a bunch of heuristics to manage instead of just one.

This is more a personal thing than anything, but my thoughts are that this is something to avoid. Given that help intent is basically this, adding a safety is redundant. Plus Bay's implementation is poor execution. I'd rather have the ability to target someone and not have it go off, than listen to it try to shoot like an echo-locating cricket tap dancing in a castanet factory because someone decides to click to face between me and the door.

Bump.

Or show up for one round and leave for two years, then find you have 40k in debt.

The idea is that you can silently and secretly retrieve DNA from someone without having to sprit them away. And even if they had some instant 'devour you whole, run off like alien hunter to take you somewhere else' ability, just because the ability is itself sudden doesn't mean it's a gank. Is it a gank if you have to fight for this life as normal but you can't use your radio? Is it a gank if they attack suddenly but RP as crew for ten minutes prior? Adaptation is apparently suited for stealth and subterfuge, meaning that backstabbing and impersonation are what it's all about, which may mean taking a guy down quickly.

I think the time for making amends has come and gone. While you cannot make two adults like and interact with each other pleasantly, it is well within the jurisdiction of staff to remove someone from the community for, as it were, 'failing to play nice with others.' and/or community when the rules itself declares 'Do not be a dick' under the premise of 'they're slightly less dickish today, so they're improving and warrant further tolerance to improve' completely glosses over the fact that 'being less of a dick' is still not the same as 'not being a dick', and no matter how you slice that golden rule, is still a violation of it, despite the fact that they have been warned in this complaint prior and gave their assent (as quoted) to continue this behavior no longer, following not even a full week goes by and he already constructs a list of insults aggregated as eight in the space of 10-11 minutes against one person. I wait, @Skull132, for your answer as to how this behavior is acceptable as a member of staff. Obviously, you don't think they should be stripped of their staff position. I'll not argue that point regardless of whether or not I agree with it. Again, the quotes have them acknowledge the behavior, agree to cease, and then shortly after engage in that behavior yet again. Imagine if I, as a player, had a note five days old for a particular behavior, and had it brought up the next time I got BWOINKED! for the same thing, while having an open complaint against me for the same behavior. My ass would be halfway to the moon from how hard I'd be kicked from the server. I'd be banned so hard from the server my grandkids couldn't play before making an appeal. How much time do they need to demonstrate they won't improve? You don't view this as worthy of warranting their removal from staff? Fine, jobban them. And I mean that as a serious suggestion. Since there appears to be no procedure in place for something so egregious as this behavior (which a repeat instance of is not so egregious as to warrant outright removal from staff), it's easily within your capability to pull them from staff for the 2 months reexamination period that you yourself suggest, then you can have a revisit as to whether or not they deserve those roles back. No admin here enables someone who's a problem player in security to remain in security. No admin here enables someone who's a problem player in the server to remain in the server. So, if you're concerned about their behavior as a dev, remove them and observe them outside. If there's concern about their behavior as a community member (which the tide of others here clearly evidences), perhaps removal from the platforms they cause problems in is, in and of itself, not something that should be out of the realm of actions to consider.

Kindly ask that a wider stipulation to deprive Fowl of their favorite insults/descriptors related to mental disordering, including 'autist(ic)', 'retard(ed)', 'schizo(phrenic)'. If the fact we can't expect to use phrases 'Jew'ng someone out of something' or 'talking black' under the purview of slurs, I don't think using actual mental afflictions which 1) people here are actually afflicted with, 2) such conditions beyond their control are being repeatedly used as a pejorative. I'm autistic. Does that mean I'm somehow lesser than Fowl, considering he sees it as an insult? The fact he repeatedly would use it and see zero issue in so using a term to describe... anything but actual autism, is that not just as punishable as any other prejudice? Do you believe that 'autistic' or 'retarded' is a valid term to use to describe someone's thoughts? If you do not, do you condone a staff member using it in official capacity as feedback? Do you believe it's allowable for any community member to use it against another at all? If you do not, why is this issue complex? @Garnascus said it's not under his jurisdiction because Fowl is a member of dev staff, and now you say you won't punish him except as for his acts as a dev in official capacity? Who, then, do we go to in having them be punished for their general behavior and what standards should staff be held to, when it's believed that anyone not-staff would be reprimanded for similar behavior?

@Garnascus Since this complaint has seen apparent 'resolution' (though I would hardly call it that) then further perpetration of said offending behavior following, could you give some official view/compel an official response on the matter beyond it 'being looked into', since that has been the case for the past five weeks with no appreciable gain?

A person being banned, engaging in behavior that does not fall within the rules, or having a history of either is not an abdication of their right to lodge or provide testimony in a complaint. The uneven application of punishment among any two parties engaged in similar or identical behavior is not grounds to eschew deserved punishment for one or both parties. You may view these as flaws in the system, and they may very well be, but the system is in place and functions according to design as best its enforcers manage as fallible creatures. This thread isn't the place to discuss or propose change these things. A staff member think there's no issue with their pattern of behavior, not just an isolated incident, by labeling people as 'autistic' and 'retarded' as a insult, and responding, at very least to vitriol with such comments, and at potential worst, polite discourse with these words. This behavior has been demonstrated to be persistent. And had been demonstrated to still persist with evidence of having occurred after the accused's post in this thread that they'd cease such behavior. Those are the facts and heart of this complaint, let us stick to those.

For someone who claims to neither be a dick nor use targeting slurs, I, for one, would love to hear how your persistent use of the words 'Autistic' and 'Retarded' as pejoratives constitute neither.

Before saying anything else, I like this idea. Things to note- The idea of parasites is so nice because it makes it far better as an explanation for why someone suffered an effect (say, paralysis) with zero actual chemicals in their system. With the parasites, are they going to be body scannable either general or advanced? Surgically removable? Will the owner get a notification? There's the categories set forth. Where would melee combat (e.g. claws, arm blade), come into play? Will there be utility to parasites beyond inflicting ailments, e.g. tracking a target all nuke disk like, seeing through someone's eyes, hearing what they would hear (possibly including headsets), a temporary dominate, etc.? What base abilities will exist besides DNA absorption? Will DNA absorption take the full 45 seconds of the person just standing still to so a single successful extraction? How many times can you extract from one person? Is this ability more (or possibly less effective) on other changelings? Are these new lings unabashedly cooperative or only tenuously cooperative (or possibly even competitive)? Will you retain a round removal absorption for more genetic points? Will you have a recruitment/thralling/conversion mechanic? I understand this is in the works and that abilities are far from finalized, but given your idea I want to pick your brain about how you expect things to be played given different scenarios, with answers being how you imagine a level 3 for each type of ling (defense, ranged, and adaptive) would respond to each scenario- You require access into a particular high security room (eg vault, upload, Captain's office), what abilities do you have that others don't that can help you achieve this? You've been permanently brigged for murder and are clad in jumpsuit. What can you do to escape? What can you do after to remain free? You have reason to do away with someone. What are both the quietest and the most efficient ways you can do it? You're in interrogation, handcuffed. How can you turn the tide to your favor? That said, I know it's a lot, but it's an exciting project to me an am absurdly curious to the direction you wish to take it.

I mean, given all the above, I'd prefer the more lethal option. How about, for argument's sake, we give the detective a 2 shot 'vaporiser', where one shot just... Kills the person it hits, no questions asked. I doubt you'd ever see a legit, non-griefer, nontag detective use it except in actual fear of life due to the IC/OOC consequences of using such a weapon, given that trying to use it to take down a fleeing perpetrator or what have you will more than likely result in a horrible 'BWOINK!' noise. Point being that, the more lethal the detective's weapon, the less likely that you're going to have some rules/admin-fearing player use it without due cause.

I was surprised by, and find myself in agreement with, the conclusions reached by others here, given I didn't think of the ramifications they allege that make perfect sense. Let's look at something, real quick- if I shoot you dead lethally, things depending I will more than likely get the powers that be tapping me on my shoulder with a ban hammer in their other hand. Generally, this is something I want to avoid and is a primary fear floor most players in taking action. But this is an OOC punishment that's in place more to ensure that those who ignore consequences of IC actions are removed from the environment so as to not disrupt enjoyment for the rest. ICly, you're dead and I killed you, with the various consequences from that (which I should be want to avoid). With those two things in mind and a gun in my hand, which gun--per bullet--has a greater chance of making me cause someone's death? Lethals obviously. Which gun would I, therefore, be more leery of and less likely to use? Lethals. If you're worried about detectives killing people, slap them with the consequences of doing so when it happens. Otherwise, when they have a way to unload their weapon where it's less likely they suffer the consequences above, they'll more likely take it. And I, for one, if I had to be shot as an antagonist without provocation, would rather be perforated so I could observe without consequence instead of thrown in a cell and potentially griped at for not attempting to RP from in the cell with the person who saw fit to shoot first, ask questions never, and took it on themselves to go 'You know what this round needs? Less antags'.

I agree with most the points you make except this one. As someone earlier said 'win stupid prizes'. The issue with this is when RNG smiles on the aggressor, and the moment they get pushed they lose all their weapons, as opposed to falling, rolling over, and emptying half an SMG clip into the poor bastard that bumped him. When people believe themselves at advantage, they will strike. If you fail to maintain control of your weapon against an unarmed opponent who has the drop on you, it's on you for letting them get the drop when you have the weapon.

In secret, more often than not, there's an antagonist. If there's an antagonist, you as a player don't have the primary burden to drive your own RP, and if that involves any actual conflict, you're more likely to get slapped because you aren't an antag (hell, even on regular extended where people want a 'chill' round rather than one driven by antag RP). But secret extended is a magical place. The angry guy stabbing you after a verbal altercation- griefer, bad escalation, antag? Who knows!? The best revolution I've ever seen was organic in a secret extended round. The bloodiest times were secret extended rounds (bar the time you get 3 /tg/ players on the same Merc team). Yes, people meta and fundamentally prepare for it like an antag round and operate under such principles as if it were, but there's no idea what (or if) the antag even is. There are things in secret extended that would /never/ happen in regular voted extended and that's the beauty of such mode. But why have it at all, if that's what happens and it just serves as a confounding variable to whether or not you're reacting to antag play? Because you shouldn't be reacting to 'antag play', you should be just an appropriate reaction to the circumstances around you. If this serves as a stumbling block to your character or play, perhaps examine both.

The idea is that this rules provide insurance/protection against claims of gank or lack of escalation. If I were to murder someone, the best bet is to do so immediately and suddenly without warning, ideally from very far away. Exposing yourself to your victim to satisfy a 'minimum RP threshold' is stupid in a sense of practicality, and inviting RNG to dick you over while your would-be victim fucks you with a switchblade and your name in his headset. A real, salient objective of 'I'm going to kill this guy by bombing his office' from the get-go, and letting the admins know your motivations in so doing, should be a viable method to demonstrate a lack of wanton murder and protect yourself from something that clearly wasn't a random 'Imma kill just anyone' without escalation.

You could make it as simple as 'If you are pre-planning someone's death (by name or by role), you must ahelp it and your intended manner(s) of death first.' And those that aren't in this way that fall into 'gank/no escalation/opportunity' territory, e.g. not sec interrupting or the disposal of a witness, would be worth looking into. It may stink if you're the traitor target and feel you've been /TG/'d, but so far as you've not been the same person's target a majority of the time, it falls to 'that sucks, more rounds later'.