Flamingo

As much as playing vox can be fun at times, I support their removal for the reasons stated. I’d rather see something a lore nerd is passionate about put in eventually than let vox rot for another few years. Vox lore has always been open for modification but it’s still been sitting rotting for years. The last person to try anything was I believe Syntax, and I don’t think much got done there. I’d rather see them cut out and redone sooner rather than letting it fester with no one fixing it. Besides, the first step to total overhaul is removing it. Gives the devs more freedom to modify things since people aren’t going to be up in arms about actively playing characters. Just my two cents.

I am in support of the removal of cloning. Brainmed making death less common to ridiculous stuff only reinforces that to me.

Application denied following a discussion had with the applicant. They are free to reapply at a future date. Locking and Archiving.

Also voting for dismissal. Basically skull outlined my thoughts, but characters' who are cloned (for example, to avoid punishment placed on another character ICly) are already punished. If you make an entirely different character who just looks the same, then I don't really see an issue if they act differently and have a different name. Echoing what garn said, as long as it is not done in bad faith (changing one letter in the name comes to mind), then I have no issue. It is incredibly minor and honestly, you can only make characters' look so different with only like 20 good hairstyles, and 32x32 sprites.

As both skull and arrow have already outlined, the end goal of our warnings system is not to train our members to be better people (this is just a beneficial side-effect and hopefully something that happens), it is to prevent them from being abusive or otherwise breaking rules repeatedly. If someone breaks the rules a bunch then they should be warned for it, not given a free pass because they were abusive and no one noticed for a week. Furthermore, as arrow said, certain areas of the forums simply aren't looked at as much. There's sections that get like... a post per month, maybe, and I for one do not check certain areas because I simply am not interested in them. I think a policy like this would not be in line with the way we currently moderate and as such am voting for dismissal.

Almost everyone has already said my thoughts. It is a tool we use to deal with a situation, and while it sucks, occasionally it must be employed. Voting for dismissal.

While I agree that the "most realistic" version would be heads of staff playing either their role or visitor, I think that allowing them to play a lesser role within their respective department is fine for the sake of letting people play the characters they enjoy. Furthermore, we already allow characters to fill multiple jobs in certain cases, as long as it's done believably with overlapping knowledge and such, so I don't see too much of an issue with this. Voting for dismissal.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I also don't really see this issue myself.

I'd be fine extending the flavor text rule to custom items. Only for physical descriptions (this would prevent you from naming an item after your character since you couldn't possibly know that by looking at it). I personally have my characters' initials on certain items, but it's listed towards the end of the description and I think this should be allowed.

I don't like this. I personally never play a character without fully filling out records, flavor text, backstory, etc. This is very time consuming and I understand why someone wouldn't want to do it for a character they may delete after 2 rounds (I personally have spent several hours creating a character, only to never play them again because I didn't enjoy it). However, I feel like records actually come up so rarely, it really doesn't matter. I have had characters who I played hundreds of rounds on who never once had their records references ICly. Furthermore, flavor text is pretty much a 50/50 on server already, and I've never personally been bothered by it. It's simply another tool someone can choose to use if they wish to expand upon their character further. Voting for dismissal.

Currently the rule is technically unwritten in that it is enforced under the "believable characters" rule. That said, I am fine restricting them to service (and supply?) roles. Generally speaking, mute characters are more of a hindrance than a help. This is not always true, but realistically speaking, they wouldn't even be considered for these positions where communication in potentially life-threatening emergencies is key, when a perfectly able person could be hired instead. I would also personally be fine seeing them in research roles, but I am not dead set on that. I could go either way.

I think the addition of this rule is acceptable.

This warning was applied to you in error. I have removed it from your ckey. I will close this in 24 hours if there are no further concerns.

I will investigate this.

Interview: https://pastebin.com/G32K0GFk