Jump to content


Primary Administrators
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Flamingo

  • Rank
    Head of Personnel
  • Birthday 01/03/1995

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey

Recent Profile Visitors

641 profile views
  1. Alright, Matt and I have had some time to go over things and have come to a decision. After reviewing the logs and provided testimony, we've ruled this complaint to be invalid. Our reasoning hinges on the fact that, as Read ruled during the round, the situation was not dire enough for the promotions. The security team was indeed injured, but the Head of Security could still effectively deal with the situation. Spiders, while posing a threat, can be largely ignored for a few minutes. The prisoner from our understanding was HuT and can easily be stuffed in a cell for a few minutes while the HoS deals with things. Finally, the Head of Security is adequately equipped to deal with a single cargo tech with some rifles. From a logical standpoint, we understand your thought process behind promoting visitors to bolster the Head of Security's effective reach, but the directive cited by Read in the original ahelp was enacted due to gameplay reasons, not in-character logical ones. Visitors are generally only to be promoted if a situation has already reached the point where ERT is going to be called regardless. This is of a similar caliber as handing out weapons to the crew at large, as that is effectively what a visitor is, regardless of training. Acceptable under the right circumstances, but not when there's some minor issues. If there are no further concerns, we will be locking and archiving this thread in 24 hours.
  2. Hello. @MattAtlas and I will be taking this complaint. Please allow us some time to go over everything. Thanks.
  3. After speaking to the applicant, I will be denying this application. You are welcome to reapply down the line, and you can contact me directly on discord at Flamingo#5454 if you have additional comments, questions, or concerns. Locking and Archiving.
  4. After speaking with the applicant, they have decided to retract this application due to the unforeseen extension of their absence. You are welcome to contact me directly at Flamingo#5454 on discord with any further questions, concerns, or comments on the application or application process. Locking and Archiving.
  5. After speaking with the applicant we will be denying this application at this time. Thank you for your interest. If you have further questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to contact me directly on discord at Flamingo#5454. Locking and Archiving.
  6. After speaking to the applicant, this trial will be extended an additional week, and will end of the 6th of July, 2020.
  7. After speaking to the applicant, we decided the best course of action would be to retract this application. Locking and Archiving.
  8. Application accepted following a successful trial. Locking and Archiving.
  9. Trial started as of June 18th, 2020. It will conclude on July 18th, 2020.
  10. Unfortunately I cannot speculate on how to improve on a possible future trend. While there was no breach of the rules in this specific incident, I would caution participants in potential future incidents to consider carefully their characters' motivations. Not every blackmail attempt should be met with murder. This was a specific case in which the blackmailed character had a sufficient support structure, and through the actions of other characters, was able to formulate a plan that involved neutralizing the offending traitor. As for question two, feel free to contact me privately on discord, as that seems tangentially related to the complaint, and it will be easier to speak in such a format, as I can reference your notes directly without putting them out on the public forums. Let me know if you have further concerns about this complaint, otherwise I will mark it resolved.
  11. Alright, I apologize for the delay. @Goret and I have had some time to go over the logs and review the events throughout the round. We've both independently come to the conclusion that there was sufficient reason for Locke to kill Ethernet, so it was by no means gank. Furthermore, we've concluded that there was sufficient escalation throughout the round leading up to the death, as Ethernet pretty much told Locke that if they didn't kill Imran (at the time, but later Ana), they would be exposed to the authorities, as well as several other conversations throughout the round. In the end, it comes down to whether or not Locke reacted reasonably to the threats Ethernet put forth, and we've determined that they did so. Just how a security officer can be killed if they walk in on an ongoing crime without the antag having to sit there and monologue, the antag should be prepared to be killed if they make threats that could reasonably be met with lethal intent. In this case, the antag in question threatened Locke with blackmail that would lead to their destruction if they did not comply, but it backfired due to the actions of several other characters. If there are no further concerns, either Goret or I will mark this complaint as resolved and lock this thread in 24 hours.
  12. Always a pleasure to play with you, Tagada. A comprehensive and well thought out list. Teaching new players was always something I would make an effort to do (and still do, on the occasion I find myself in-game with one). I definitely cannot stress enough the importance of rule 0, and I am glad you agree. Nothing is worse than a quiet department with several members. It is exponentially more difficult to work as a team when no one talks to one another.
  • Create New...