Contextual

Double post because phones.

Let me start with an aside to you acknowledging your skillful rhetoric, vocabulary, and ability to clearly and concisely convey your point in a diplomatic and/or passive aggressive manner. That's truly a rare quality these days, and commendable. However, I have to disagree with you, fundamentally because your analogy is at its best a sweeping generalization of the playerbase, and internet users as a whole. I will not deny you the fact that on the internet, thick skin and snarky comebacks are the qualities most often revered and portrayed, but I will contend that this in no way portends to the issue at hand, primarily because no direct offense, insult, or slander is being committed. These things would be an issue if we were honestly debating whether or not to ban asshattery in OOC, but not so much in this discussion of topic restriction. The thing is, if a player(or better yet, a person) finds themselves in an uncomfortable position of having to bear witness to a topical discussion which truly and genuinely harms them on a psychological, emotional, or stressful level, the onus is indeed on them not to necessarily remove themselves from the discussion, but to make their discomfort known. Once this is on the table, the decision falls onto those original proponents to either: a) Break the "Don't be a dick" rule and continue their discussion, knowing full well that it upsets a fellow player and thus warrant an OOC mute, or b) Change the topic. Alternatively, it is an option for the offended party to simply mute OOC from their end. Understand that this is not an inherently negative course of action, though it involves less 'conflict' and would be a reasonable course of action if the player does not believe the topic at hand to be truly offensive in nature but does not wish to hear it regardless. To simply curtail the conversation out of the gate by making a rule against it is quite frankly a rather hamfisted approach at enforcing 'civility' in a community that is otherwise expected and purported to be one of mature players, and by that definition one that is able to remain civil if left to its own devices. If an offended player does not wish to explore their frankly myriad options for dealing with something they may not like being discussed in a side channel, and instead wishes to leave entirely and by your statement not come back, then they are by all means welcome to. That is their choice, and I find it rather distasteful to paint it as though we are chasing them, torches and pitchforks in hand, out into the countryside that they might not return to terrorize our meager homestead with their wretched sensibilities. I should also not like to think of the opposite, that we are a honeyed trap wishing to lure in as wide an audience as possible under the guise of... nonconfrontationalism(?) in order to retain them indefinitely unto the twilight years of the server's life, that they may never wish to leave without scruples of doing so. Understand that I am not speaking of only restricting political and religious discussion, nor am I defending heated debates thereof, I am speaking of putting any kind of metaphorical blinders on the metaphorical horse and calling it well-trained as opposed to artificially unaware. It is much more reasonable to expect the offended to act as mature as the offenders are expected to be, and to present their position in a civil, reasonable manner, so that others may reciprocate. If you want to contest the issue of whether doing so is effectual, I welcome you to, for I know based on first-hand experience, many of them, that the system we have works, and it works well. Perhaps, though, a case could be made for giving moderators more power, with this discussion in particular the ability to mute OOC, to better moderate the server and curb hostility.

Let me start with an aside to you acknowledging your skillful rhetoric, vocabulary, and ability to clearly and concisely convey your point in a diplomatic and/or passive aggressive manner. That's truly a rare quality these days, and commendable. However, I have to disagree with you, fundamentally because your analogy is at its best a sweeping generalization of the playerbase, and internet users as a whole. I will not deny you the fact that on the internet, thick skin and snarky comebacks are the qualities most often revered and portrayed, but I will contend that this in no way portends to the issue at hand, primarily because no direct offense, insult, or slander is being committed. These things would be an issue if we were honestly debating whether or not to ban asshattery in OOC, but not so much in this discussion of topic restriction. The thing is, if a player(or better yet, a person) finds themselves in an uncomfortable position of having to bear witness to a topical discussion which truly and genuinely harms them on a psychological, emotional, or stressful level, the onus is indeed on them not to necessarily remove themselves from the discussion, but to make their discomfort known. Once this is on the table, the decision falls onto those original proponents to either: a) Break the "Don't be a dick" rule and continue their discussion, knowing full well that it upsets a fellow player and thus warrant an OOC mute, or b) Change the topic. Alternatively, it is an option for the offended party to simply mute OOC from their end. Understand that this is not an inherently negative course of action, though it involves less 'conflict' and would be a reasonable course of action if the player does not believe the topic at hand to be truly offensive in nature but does not wish to hear it regardless. To simply curtail the conversation out of the gate by making a rule against it is quite frankly a rather hamfisted approach at enforcing 'civility' in a community that is otherwise expected and purported to be one of mature players, and by that definition one that is able to remain civil if left to its own devices. If an offended player does not wish to explore their frankly myriad options for dealing with something they may not like being discussed in a side channel, and instead wishes to leave entirely and by your statement not come back, then they are by all means welcome to. That is their choice, and I find it rather distasteful to paint it as though we are chasing them, torches and pitchforks in hand, out into the countryside that they might not return to terrorize our meager homestead with their wretched sensibilities. I should also not like to think of the opposite, that we are a honeyed trap wishing to lure in as wide an audience as possible under the guise of... nonconfrontationalism(?) in order to retain them indefinitely unto the twilight years of the server's life, that they may never wish to leave without scruples of doing so. Understand that I am not speaking of only restricting political and religious discussion, nor am I defending heated debates thereof, I am speaking of putting any kind of metaphorical blinders on the metaphorical horse and calling it well-trained as opposed to artificially unaware. It is much more reasonable to expect the offended to act as mature as the offenders are expected to be, and to present their position in a civil, reasonable manner, so that others may reciprocate. If you want to contest the issue of whether doing so is effectual, I welcome you to, for I know based on first-hand experience, many of them, that the system we have works, and it works well. Perhaps, though, a case could be made for giving moderators more power, with this discussion in particular the ability to mute OOC, to better moderate the server and curb hostility.

Stable aliums are still stable.

Stable aliums are still stable.

Okay. Sue is not working on xenomorphs. Her project has little to no bearing on this discussion and I have yet to see a good reason why it should. Can we please stop pointing our fingers at this illusory, fantastical xenomorph project you're all convinced she's working on, now? Please? It's shutting down legitimate discussion.

This is simple enough. Make it so that dispensing a chemical from the chem dispenser has a random chance to 'splash' a unit of every chemical in the container into the eyes of the user. Make it so goggles prevent this from hurting or effecting the user, and give them acid resistance so they don't melt. The acid resistance could give incentive to use the goggles instead of just a pair of glasses, which would melt into slop when exposed to acid. Don't make it so that the splash actually detracts from the contents of the container. How does something like that sound?

Here's what I don't understand---there seems to be an explicit fear expressed in this thread that the aliens might be too strong, that security might not succeed, that everyone on the station might be reduced to existing in perfectly rational fear of these completely unknown, horrifying, powerful, seemingly perfect killing machines that are slowly---or rapidly---picking them off, being hunted across the station. Why is this a bad thing? Why does the crew have to win? Are we worried about the 'warfare' castes? Why not just disable evolution into boilers, crushers, and ravagers, then? Let's try a ittle compare and contrast with two of the most common 'antagonists' on the server. Combat Drones and Space Carp, both happen, frequently, and both pose a minor danger to players. Aliens happen, infrequently, and pose a major danger to players. Combat Drones and Space Carp generate very little roleplay, and don't offer much potential for more. Aliens generate a lot of roleplay, and have an incredible amount of potential--especially with the Stable code. Someone help, I'm not finding any downsides.

Last I checked, disconnecting in order to avoid serving time warrants an immediate ban of some kind, no questions asked. Just throwing that out there. Or at least, it used to. Administration has been playing slow and loose with their stance on these things, from what I've seen.

The plethora of empty, mocking, self-entitled shitposting on the first page of this thread alone should clue you in on the state of our community, really. It's almost depressing, really--I've been getting heavier, more honest roleplay on Colonial Marines than Aurora recently.

BYOND Key: Contextual Staff BYOND Key: Garnascus Reason for complaint: Disregarded an adminhelp about poor (read:ridiculous) roleplay by a command member, disregarding the fact that they were rolling about in flamethrower fuel intentionally lighting themselves on fire and joking about being the human torch in character by saying it's okay, because mechanically the fuel doesn't do much damage. Evidence/logs/etc: Unfortunately my game crashed shortly after the exchange, but the exchange was at ~10:20 Central time 8/17/2015. Additional remarks: This is directly related to the ban request I have posted on Ffrances, the command player in question.

BYOND Key: Contextual Accused Players Byond Key: Ffrances Time of Act: 10:21 Central, 8/17/2015 Reason for Ban:Player was rolling about in flamethrower fuel in the holodeck with a lit cigar in their mouth, repeatedly lighting themselves on fire, emoting being consumed by the flames, and making IC comments such as "haha i'm the human torch"[sic]. When ahelped, I was told that this is acceptable because "It doesn't do enough damage to kill them," by Garnascus. Staff complaint to follow. This is unacceptable behavior from a longstanding whitelisted player, especially when playing a command role. Evidence: I unfortunately had connection issues at the time, but if an admin could pull the logs that would be wonderful, as the evidence is fairly damning.

If I'm not wrong about the round in question, I'm fairly certain I was a witness. I never saw a staffmember directly tell them to stop but once, and frankly don't see the grounds for this warning. What's wrong with discussing Nazism or facets thereof in a positive light? What's wrong with quoting Hitler? What's wrong with posting songs, videos, or photos that aren't inherently hateful, derogatory, or sexual? I really don't understand where in the conversation the topic became worse than PG-13. Perhaps the logs will clarify that much, at least. Overall, this case feels like a cherrypick on the part of the admin team, whether to reaffirm their own 'moral' position or to besmirch the player I'm not in a position to say. In closing, the topic at hand wasn't even overtly political in nature, so much as it was a minor celebration of a genuine part of Germany's cultural history. If cultural discussions and celebrations are not to be allowed, I see no reason for OOC to be unmuted at any point in a round, because cultural topics are unavoidable.

Seems to me like Rusty is openly admitting to his disgusting OOC behavior. It also sounds like he expects to get away with it, because staff have had a history or saying "Oh, you!" and giving him a slap on the wrist, if that. I recall myself multiple times in the past where Rusty repeatedly pushed the boundaries of what is appropriate in OOC, singlehandedly causing the admins to mute it for a time. Can't blame him, though. It's not his fault the longstanding stance on his behavior is that he's just one of those good ol' boys.

Yeah, hi. My name is Contextual, and I recently started playing cyborg. Rather, Android. Regardless, I have not played it before, so I started with what seemed like the best introductory model--being, Standard. And holy shit, it was wonderful--it can literally do anything it is asked to do to some degree, short of busting rocks. Even now, having played all the modules, I find the Standard module to be the best because it is the only one that actually has a personality and isn't a service borg. (By the way, where do Service borgs fit in your little design pattern?) All the modules cubbyhole, shoehorn roleplay and ability into a tiny box, whereas the standard module can fill any need. Whether it's assisting science with literally anything, helping security enforce the law, conducting EVA maneuvers to assist Engineering, dragging crates around cargo, monitoring lifesigns of wounded, or just talking with people. They can do anything, but they can't do any one job start to finish--rather, they exist and perform as assistants. AKA, the design of them encourages interaction with people, literally anyone. It's just fantastic.

Interacting with SSDs in any way other than taking them to the dorms or to cryo is frowned upon. Harming or stealing from them is a fairly severe offense. Stripping them nude and taking pornographic photos without in-character or out-of-character permission is not only erotic roleplay, but it is also a sexual act without consent, making it sexual assault. If sexual assault is allowed on our server with little more than a slap on the wrist, then I don't even know.

Alright, I've been mulling this one over a bit, and I think I've got a decent solution. Leave taser stats alone. The way they work right now is somewhat a mockery of how they work in real life, which is par for the course for most things in SS13 and is fine. Two electrodes in the perp, enter electricity stage right, exit antag stage right. Now, we could then buff two things: Energy Carbines and antag armor/add antag stunresist sneaky suit attachment. Energy Carbines are, realistically, godawful weapons for any use. They use more energy for less or the same effect as a taser, have a depressingly small 'magazine' and are harder to store than a taser. They're bulkier, flashier, more obvious, and worse than a professional-grade personal defense weapon, which is silly. Solution? Short of doubling capacity (bad idea gameplay wise, lethal lasers everywhere), change the projectile they fire when set to nonlethal. Make it the same range or less than tasers, and make it a one-stop shop for stunning people. Replace 'electrodes' with 'arcs' of energy, allow it to go through windows (maybe), and suddenly you have a weapon that's worth upgrading to on code red. Then, make it so that antagsuits resist tasers. Tasers fire electrodes, which work by hitting flesh--make it require many more hits, maybe so that they dont work at all on syndicate hardsuits. Then, make it so that the arcs of the energy carbines do stun through hardsuits, in one or two shots(either or per balance testing). Now, this would not only balance tasers, but it would allow security to escalate its nonlethal capacity alongside its lethal capacity, leading to (hopefully) less death and more roleplay. Carbines would be worth carrying, and more gameplay options all around. Alternately, you could leave the carbines alone, and instead switch tasers over to a real electrode system. Meaning, little darts come out, do half a brute damage, leave a mark, and are embedded in the target. Range is limited to 4-5 tiles. Once target is stuck, activate held item to deliver insta-stun until darts are removed. 2-3 stun charges per fullcharge taser. Once a target is stuck, leaving the max range will cause the darts to violently rip out of the target, dealing significant brute damage, cause bleeding, and have a decent chance to break the taser. Darts can be removed by hand with no damage or chance of breakage by any nonstunned party, through use of emptyhand help intent. Stowing the taser counts as leaving the max range. Darts are retarded by hardsuits and when targetted areas are armored, causing the dart to drop to the floor. This comes with a very slim chance to break the taser, as well. The dart can be retracted by activating held item, or leaving max range, a la pAI doorhack cable. Broken tasers can be repaired by skilled personnel through use of cable coil. Repairing tasers without insulated gloves and without removing the power cell will cause electrocution. Either of the two suggestions would be fun to see. Maybe both.

The long and short of the issue is that the player in question posted IC in OOC, was told to stop, and proceeded to get ornery and defensive. They belittled the admin for enforcing a very clear rule in a very concise manner, and so earned themselves a mute on the grounds of being a dick, argumentative, disrespectful, and as more of a footnote, posting IC in OOC. Multiple other players called them out on the fact that they were breaking rules by being argumentative during the event, as well, and yet they (as evident by the posted logs) continued to have an attitude. Speaking directly to Khalid -- Age doesn't matter. If you think it does, you're just being incredibly vain. Mechanics do mechanic work, Accountants do accounting, IT does IT work, Administrators enforce rules. If you're about to start arguing that a programmer shouldn't 'talk down to you' (to give a similar analogy to this situation, "Don't press that button,") because you both may or may not be of similar age, then you're just being asinine and acting entitled.

I'm a moderate Fascist Republican with some fairly progressive/socialist views. I despise most when governments try to be something they're not.

I'm sorry, but is this a problem? Attached: the most (literally)painfully slow form of movement the military supports, also incredibly effective at what it was designed for--not dying. This post gave me NIC PTSD flashbacks, I hope you're happy

Play 2d Spessmen. Wait...

Maintenance Drone, fighting the powers that be in a quest for RP.

#DroneLivesMatter

Why... why would it cause seizures? What?

My lawyers said that this case would never hold up in a webcam court of internet bylaws, so go suck a lemon you filthy pigcat.