VTCobaltblood

This is basically... "I won't remove physical currency just because." It's extremely vague. What are those elements? I don't see how physical currency being used instead of more convenient options is in any way immersive, considering the game takes place in 25th century.

Why didn't everyone migrate to credit cards/other more convenient method of payment than physical moni? It's the year 2460, no? I absolutely love #7 though

Just fill the piano with the new phoron salts and make the piano keys heat up buttons

Absolute +1. The piano's soundfont is so absolutely horrible that while playing cargo, I got a headache and had to cryo. Please at least move it to the stage, where the holopad is, so that it's only heard in the bar, instead of having it open to the hallway.

This is from Goon. The AI can easily go back and forth from a cyborg with an AI interface (it's inserted instead of a brain) to its usual self. However, if you want to help the station yourself, why even pick the role of an AI? Why not play a borg? The whole point of playing AI, in my opinion, are its unique ways to interact with the environment and crew without being present physically.

Get better, we're waiting for you to come back <3

(that's spelled Bret-scher) Of course he isn't. I perfectly realize that - he's got a very bad medical record, is prone to insults and wild paranoia, and is totally unable to deal with stressful situations. I'm not trying to push Bretscher into Command (no matter how bad Bretscher wants to push himself into Command) - my new characters created specifically for command will be much more sane and respectful to others. Bretscher isn't in any way similar to how I actually act outside of playing him, perhaps even the total opposite of me at times, so I believe I have a good ability to create characters that won't behave like him.

But he did believe that the director was incompetent - he even wanted to place a complaint for neglect of duty. As such, it technically isn't slander, but it's being extremely insulting and toxic to your direct supervisor. You dont need to have them arrested for this behavior. You can demote them or suspend them. Security does not need to be involved in every argument unless they violently resist a resulting demotion. I dont think we need a security regulation to babysit the other departments to resolve arguments. The people that behave this way tend to get arrested when they refuse to turn in their ID while they hide in maint. Or they agree and get demoted and its resolved quick and easy. Corporate regs and security regs are a bit different. Corporate regs aren't only what you can be arrested for - they're also a list of things you can be fined or demoted for.

This is a correct use of i109. More importantly, it falls in line fairly well with slander. Calling the Director incompetent (I assume to their face) is a huge blow and an insult, as the current definition provides. The Director's whole embodiment is "competent." BUT, if you do believe the Director IS incompetent, you have the right to think that without it being slander. But he did believe that the director was incompetent - he even wanted to place a complaint for neglect of duty. As such, it technically isn't slander, but it's being extremely insulting and toxic to your direct supervisor.

It isn't a mechanic - it's adding a simple text notice in the GUI that it's text-to-speech so that people don't put autohiss in what they're writing.

Counter-example, [mention]Conspiir[/mention]: in one round, my scientist character repeatedly called his director an "incompetent dipshit", even so far as to threaten him with filing a complaint for neglect of duty on his part for not listening to his irrationally paranoid suggestions to turn the AI off because it has ignored some of his orders, and also ignored a director's order, although without serious consequences. If i109 didn't cover insults, he would only receive a fine or a very short brig time for ignoring an order - when demotion, which he got for breaking two regulations with such a punishment simultaneously, is much more appropriate.

The RD will have the authority to authorize AI law changes. They currently do it anyway - but for some bizarre reason, it isn't in the regulations.

But how are we going to distinguish whether or not that ID belongs to a visitor? If we, say, spawned everyone with food vouchers, we could exclude visitors from that easily. In loadout, vouchers could be allowed for anyone except assistants (and by extension, visitors). Isn't the whole point of this idea making people pay for their food? At least visitors should pay for it. Could it perhaps be implemented like access, beeping Access Denied if your role doesn't allow you to get food? Maybe I'm just not keen on code enough and the solution is extremely simple, like brutely checking the name of the id item to not contain visitor on it or something

Well, that doesn't seem like a well thought-out suggestion, does it? This would be irrelevant anyway if Burger implements that spawning with cash in our pockets thing.

Why would I pre-pay for a meal if I can pay for it?

Which I can order myself in 2 minutes maximum, by using simple words. "Give me that lunch of the day." The whole point of vouchers is to have them issued.

Ever heard of loaded language? So instead of paying for my meal, you're suggesting I either pay for a paper that allows me to get a meal, or pay for my meal? Why would I do the first instead of the latter?

Excuse me? Like a space station in a rock? Like what Paradox proposed with making you start with less money if you get a meal card? What employee would pay for a voucher themselves? The point of vouchers is to have them issued by someone else, ensuring you get a certain service for free. Who would ever use this? What if my chef is running a fast food joint this round, what gourmands are you talking about?

How about: If Cargo approves a department funds order without the orderer actually getting an approval of their head of staff, the technician gets charged with Neglect of Duty, since their duty is to not get unapproved orders get paid with department funds, or, in absence of a relevant head of staff, make sure they're actually ordering items relevant to their job. If an approval is forged, the orderer gets charged with Fraud, since that is using deliberate deception - which will need no redefinition.

That could depend on the particular techie handling the order, actually. Be lenient and just assume they've got approval, or be more strict and demand proof of it? The RP opportunities are just writing themselves...

Okay, that's pretty good - just make sure people don't get hungry earlier than 20-30 minutes in

Since when does the Chief Engineer have more authority over the AI than the Research Director? Science handles robotics, so it should handle the AI as well. Actually, people already expect this to be the case - I was very surprised to see corporate regulations say otherwise. Seems like an error, I don't even know if this needs a policy suggestion or just a wiki edit.

i120 - Misuse of Department Funding To allow a purchase of recreational or irrelevant items with department funds without the approval of a relevant head of staff to go through. Punishable with a fine of up to 5 times the bought item's value, demotion/suspension on repeated offense. By irrelevant items, it's meant "literally anything not in the tab with the same name as your department". It doesn't mean, though, that the charge will always be applied - I imagine, for example, that Research ordering some minor items from the Medical tab is reasonable. Okay I'm on board if this regulation gets added. Do you think this should be an i100 with a fine, or an i200 with brig time? Neglect of Duty is an i200, after all.

i120 - Misuse of Department Funding To allow a purchase of recreational or irrelevant items with department funds without the approval of a relevant head of staff to go through. Punishable with a fine of up to 5 times the bought item's value, demotion/suspension on repeated offense. By irrelevant items, it's meant "literally anything not in the tab with the same name as your department". It doesn't mean, though, that the charge will always be applied - I imagine, for example, that Research ordering some minor items from the Medical tab is reasonable.

"dibector. gime moni" "for woot" "um thigsn" "tanklk to hop" "ok thx!!" 10/10 roleplay interaction Or, in less memey words: there is a reason between increasing a number of interactions and increasing a number of meaningful interactions. I'm pretty sure HoP interacting with an incompetent cargo technician that has allowed a scientist to pay for pizza in their department funds is much more meaningful than simply asking command members for the department fund account, which is going to be a simple question with a very simple answer every time.