Jump to content

LordFowl

Members
  • Posts

    1,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LordFowl

  1. Voting for dismissal. Protohumans provide a tangible positive gameplay impact. Your perceived notions of their negative impact arise from your failure to understand the mechanisms at work behind protohumans, experimentation, and medical transplants. If you have an issue with their lore, reconcile that with loredevs. If you have an issue with people throwing protohumans down disposals or similar behavior, reconcile that with admins/CCIA.
  2. If your sole intention is to sit in your office all day, you are right in that you will not likely interact with the members of your department often. This is as true of departmental security as it is any other role. Regardless, my intent was simply to correct the false idea that the offices are located outside of their department, so I hope it is now clear that that is not the case.
  3. I'm not going to try and dissect the paranoid rhetoric of an anti-security ,conspiracy but I will correct the presumption that security offices are outside of their departments, a misunderstanding that comes from somewhere surely although I don't know where because each of the images in the PR clearly show the security officer is located at the department's entrance: Science's sec office, located at the entrance of science. The sec officer even has buttons to control the airlock for letting visitors in. Engineering's sec office, located at the very first entrance to engineering. Cargo's sec office, located at the entrance to cargo while also maintaining oversight of the bar. What is not pictured is the update that gave them a door with direct access to cargo also. Medical's sec office, located above the lobby and next to virology. Medical's entrance is cramped enough, but I think this is a good place for it nonetheless. So I'm not sure where you got the idea that the offices are located OUTSIDE the department they're working with, when the PR clearly shows otherwise.
  4. Voting for dismissal. Departmental accounts are under the purview of the departmental head, e.g. the HoP. Every job would love having spare money to throw around, the chef is no exception. But that is not how the system works. If you need money consult your supervisor, like everyone else.
  5. And IAA. Not to mention that the whitelist processes, especially for command staff, have been getting more complex and finnicky.
  6. Space bears do not teleport
  7. My suggestion is that these sort of things be kept to a DL, to be used infrequently a la the prison map on the old map. This framework is useful for event maps but they shouldn’t become official and by no means should they become periodic to the degree suggested here. This idea is far more interesting when considered under the lens of letting any admin load a custombuilt map + infrastructure for lore and adminbus events, instead of us officially having Tajara lebensraum every weekend. These map templates would be designed with ease of creation and disposability in mind, but they could be repeated just like the prison map was. Instead of “alternatives to the NSS Aurora” these would be events Plus, with a wide range of depth, options, and even timeframe.
  8. The suggested space bear sprite is aggressively bad.
  9. Altogether not keen on this. Its predominant focus on a whitelisted species, its distracting focus by transplanting the players into effectively an entirely different game, and its frankly medieval setting all serve to discourage this as anything but an infrequent, even one-off thing. While I can appreciate the desire for change, this kind of idea is practically reincarnation. It builds off of nothing that already exists, instead basically creating a new game and presupposing it run concurrently to one that already exists. The more I think about it the less keen I become on the idea.
  10. “Therefore, simply put, Lord Fowl does not at all address feedback or discussion during development.“ Again you conflate two entirely disparate statements. I do not need to actively partake in discussion to address or incorporate feedback, and indeed I have incorporated feedback without being part of the discussion that produced it. My participation in a discussion begins and ends with my thesis, and I will resist any attempts to “force” me to participate in a discussion as anything but an observer. I have no interest in defending or attacking ideas, no interest in changing people’s opinions. I only care to know what and why their ooinions are. I also want to clarify another looming misconception; “He states his reasoning for doing so was because myself, as an individual, made those critiques” I would like to clarify that my only foul was blowing up at you and stating this so harshly. I understand that that is poor conduct, but understanding it does not mean I regret it. As I said in my preamble you should not be surprised when your behavior ostracizes you, and while I have a responsibility to facilitate and hear out the opinions of the community, I also have the privilege of ignoring individuals who conduct themselves in a toxic and reprehensible manner.
  11. Inevitably interacting with you just turns into a nosedive of discord shitflinging. You take pride in your argumentative and uncouth nature. And that’s fine. But don’t get uppity when that results in people secluding you, especially considering you’re latest trend of framing yourself as the victim in every argument. That said, I do admit I blew up at you. But as my own nameflinging only occupies a small portion of this complaint’s real estate I’ll gladly address the misconceptions and falsehoods that occupy the rest of it: “I believe in the intention of creating these threads, there is a responsibility for the individual to reply to genuine criticism or points given.” I have no such responsibility. My responsibility is to facilitate community discussion, not necessarily to partake in it. I’m not a politician and my goal here is not to change hearts and minds. I read feedback and clear up misconceptions and then draw my own conclusions based on the points raised and the evaluation of my colleagues. “The fact that a developer ignores all criticism and critique within discussion threads of their own PRs” You still are too eager to misconstrue “I ignore you” and turn it into “I ignore everyone”. That’s not what I’ve ever said and it’s not what I do. I in fact read every post (Including yours so you can add “Is a liar” to this staff complaint). Doesn’t read != Doesn’t respond. In short; Yes, I blew up at Zelm on Discord. No, I do not ignore feedback. No, I do not have a “responsibility” to engage in active discussion. My only responsibility is to facilitate it, not to partake in it.
  12. Implemented here; https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/6173 I've reversed my opinion after considering that this will decentralize security somewhat without actually nerfing them or making security unfun. The HoS still has power in that they control the brig and the armory, and can shape tactical actions by providing resources, and are ultimately in charge of security actions outside of a given department. Meanwhile this will alleviate the problem of "sec gets all the fun in antag rounds" because now sec is just another bloke in the department, without actually buffing or nerfing sec as a whole.
  13. Vaurca can already inhale phoron and climb faster.
  14. @Skull132 As I told PoZe long before any of this peripheral drama began, the PR does not have any grand intent. It was created because I had an idea and an idea of how to implement it. This is how most of my PRs are born. However, the bare stated intent was stated in the project thread when it was created, also before any of this peripheral drama began: As you can see, the claim that I created the PR in order to undermine the lore is based on a personal interpretation. Jackboot is of course free to believe that I was lying all the many times someone asked me what the big idea was before Amory did, but I am also free to say that's paranoid as fuck. Jackboot's order of events is somewhat maligned also, even from the context available to him, so let me shed my own light on the matter: [PR is created] > [reddit brigades] > [arrow asks for feedback thread] > [feedback thread is created with intent CLEARLY stated] > [people shitpost on thread] > [I moderate thread, get involved in drama on the discord] > [Amory says something to the effect of "The PR is awful and Fowl is just creating it just to boost his ego, but I support it if it means we can revive the political arcs." I reply with the frequently screenshot'd comment] > [jackboot latches onto this comment as proof of my malintent, tries to turn the feedback thread into a witch hunt] > [I take snarky potshots on the discord at such a transparent action]. I'd also like to say that the quotes "When I brought up this screenshot and asked for what the goal he wanted to accomplish with the PR was, the posts were hidden" and "[snarky potshots taken at criticism]" makes Jackboot's actions seem far more objective than they were. His post was not a criticism, nor was it a question. It was a straightforward and classic derailing attack, and I moderated it as such. The exact hidden post can be seen below, and if you want more context you can see the rest of the hidden posts yourself.
  15. Not a fan. The carp may be a little silly, but ss13 is a silly game. Plus, the carp have a certain je ne sais quoi, but these are just generic sci-fi shapeless purple blobs with generic edgy names.
  16. I agree, I was not implying that it was.
  17. “starting arguments over nothing, etcetera.” Almost like that quotation applies more to Jackboot than to me since I made fun of the things said, but Jackboot tried to start a spurious flame war in the forums... :big_think:
  18. "You are absolutely correct. The evidence is provided. This is another thing that you seem to do - it's like Schrodinger's cat. A Schrodinger's Joke. You do something divisive, then you both admit your were doing it out of bad faith, then say you had genuine reasons. Then whichever motive you actually have changes depending on what suits you in the conversation. Beat by beat by beat you do this every time." A very pretty idea. The only problem is that it makes no sense. Here's how things went down; 1) I made a PR. I said why I made this PR quite clearly. 2) Amory makes a statement to the effect of "I don't like this PR, but I will support it being merged if it allows us to continue X arc." 3) I reply to the effect of "I will support this PR being closed if it means we never have to do X arc again." 4) You immediately screenshot this, and post it in the feedback forum in violation of the suggestion board rules. 5) I make fun of this ridiculous behavior, especially given the silly point your post made. I don't know why this chain of events is so hard for you to follow that you feel justified to call this "Schrodinger's 'Joke'", nor why you think my motive changes "beat by beat". My actions have a pretty succinct cause and effect. Either way, I've explained the context behind this image twice now, so either you get it or you don't. Whatever that means, posting it a third time is not going to change my explanation.
  19. Reddit has been proven time and time again to be considered irrelevant as far as this community’s administration is concerned. And this complaint is about me, not burger.
  20. Is there any harm in such a joke? Admins sometimes kick friends, loredevs sneak memes into maps, DOs do... something... The point being that that’s harmless behavior, nor particularly vindictive. The core of this complaint is that I make PRs in bad faith. This is untrue. Jackboot seems to think that I’ve personally confessed to making PRs just to entrap the loredevs. This is also untrue. You can link any PR and I can explain to you the motivations. You’ll find that no PR has ever been created to dunk on someone. To be frank, I’m quite tired of Jackboot’s behavior. I find it very amusing that he says “in this very thread he shows a lack of goodwill and is just trying to put me on blast” considering that that is Jackboot’s own modus operandi, at least regarding me. The last complaint at least had actual issues interspersed with the Jackboot brand of grand indignation, but this complaint is just the latter amped to 100, the special brand of “take as many images out of context and try to make a grand statement out of them” that he specializes in. I sympathize with Delta when he highlights the idiocy in pretending to be invested in the development process but then going and shitting up feedback threads, forcing moderation. Moondancer says that my behavior regarding Jackboot is “ill-conducive”, but Jackboot’s behavior regarding me borders on a vendetta. But this complaint isn’t about Jackboot, so here we go; “buthe seems intent on baiting me into interacting with him by virtue of his PR's intentionally being attention-seeking or bombastic.” False. What’s that quote go? “I don’t think poorly of you. I don’t think of you at all.” This quote highlights perfectly the unstable kernel at the source of this complaint. Jackboot thinks I’m as out to get him as I think he’s out to get me. But I’m not. Rest assured that Jackboot is the last person on my mind when I post a PR. “He openly admits this in the images provided. He’s being provocative for his own amusement. He’s out to “get” me/lore” Again, no. What image do I confess doing this? I’ll be frank and say that no, I don’t particularly like the lore, but as a mature adult I’ve never created a PR purely to manifest this spite. You’ve made the accusations - the burden of proof rests on you. But for every screenshot, every quote that your hurredly collect out of context, there is valuable context I am all too willing to provide. ”Another talking to and a reprimand will be tantamount to doing nothing at all because it never works. It didn't work in the last staff complaint in November, and it won't work now.“ On the contrary. Skull is free to disagree, but from my perspective I have upheld the ruling established in the previous complaint. “Perhaps fowl should've deferred to someone else in that case to moderate the forum,”. As it so happens, and the forum report logs will verify this, I originally deferred Jackboot’s comment to external arbitration, as I foresaw that Jackboot would just use this as more ammo against me. However as it started sprouting further off-topic complaints I saw it was likely to derail the thread, I took action. As is not only my privilege to do so, but my responsibility.
  21. A bit of a double standard that Jackboot blocking me is fine, but me blocking Jackboot is not conducive to a functioning staff team? Am I not allowed to become exasperated also by one too many "cuz im the boss"es? Jackboot and his ever-escalating antics of false indignation are the precipice for that, but I suppose susceptibility to such a thing is a demerit on my end. I don't know what this situation has to do with Nanako, but I guess since Burger's gone the position of "Developer most easily compared to Nanako" falls to me? Perhaps your memory is anxious, but Nanako's problem was not the so-called "bad-faith" PR, (and the "I don't like this developer so they must be Nanako reborn!" theatrics were old in 2017). And regarding "strong rulings", the rulings are clear. Meme PRs, and by extension PRs made in "bad faith", or not allowed on the GitHub. But this PR, and indeed none of my PRs, have ever been made in "bad faith". You can disagree with my PR, but please stop trying to find malicious motivations where none exist. And to lightly address the spurious topic of "smug rules-lawyering", I am not beholden to inform Zelm the specifics of where the "I do not like this project, voting for dismissal" comments go after daddy developer devours them. If this makes me smug, so be it, but he would not need to ask if they never broke the rules in the first place.
  22. But it nullifies the rest of the statement which paints me in a bad light, I did not start ignoring you after responding to your question. I never stopped ignoring you.
  23. As relevant as this and any other statements of exasperation I've made in the past regarding Jackboot's many antics;
  24. I was not replying to you. I was replying to Zelm, who you so conveniently edited out of that discourse. Just as you ignore me, I also ignore you. It is an equitable arrangement. Saying that "I will delete any posts that do not agree with me" is obviously facetious, considering that I haven't. I uphold the rules of the subforum objectively, and the only posts that were hidden were ones that violated those rules. You immediately posted an image of me making an offhand comment (despite allegedly having me blocked, indicating at least to me that you were explicitly looking for something juicy to screenshot) as grand-proof of the idea that this PR is some passive aggressive GOTCHA to the lore team. It isn't. And as for your first image, I was replying to Amory's position of "I disagree with this PR but I will support it if it revives the union arc" by posting the inverse. As I made quite clear on the OP of the feedback thread, this PR was not made in bad faith, and it was not designed to dunk on the lore team. Whether it is your own insecurities speaking through, or simply the fact that you do not like me and need to validate this opinion every so often, is simply irrelevant to me. What you claim is false. Regarding my "previous incident", we discussed this somewhat indepth on the last go in november. I do not consider my Delete Skrell PR to be a mistake, nor in violation of any rules, nor passive aggressive. I consider it the reason why we have a skrell loredev at this time. You are free to disagree, and I expect you to do so because the lack of a Skrell loredev for over 70 consecutive days reflects poorly on your department, but please stop trying to drag up old dirt.
  25. Considering persistent economy does not currently exist, I don't see how it can mess up anything. If this is implemented it will be considered as we implement persistent economy. I don't foresee it as a particularly obstructive issue.
×
×
  • Create New...