Flamingo

Locking and Archiving.

Locking and Archiving.

Alright I took some time to go through the logs. I find myself in agreement with @ParadoxSpace's decision. You were only engaged with non-lethal methods. All batons were on help intent (stun mode), and were employed after flashes. Additionally, the most damage you received was from the beanbag shells after you threw shit at people unprovoked. As Paradox said, it was no surprise how things progressed. I will lock and archive this thread in 24 hours if there are no additional concerns.

Alright, I apologize for the wait time. I've been out of town for the past few days. I forced @BearSchwanz to assist me with this complaint, and after reviewing the logs, and both parties' testimonies here, we've both reached the same conclusion: the application of a warning in this instance is valid. While it is true you had an interaction earlier in the round over a planted C-4, we deemed your use of several viscerator grenades to be overkill for the amount of escalation you had done throughout the round. As you quoted: In regards to not killing: it is true you did not kill them (or intend to), but you caused a lot of damage, and the rule also states in the second half that you should avoid causing large amounts of collateral damage. Furthermore, our rules state you should seek to drive a story with your actions. Simply causing a lot of damage to the expedition party as they finally decide to head back is not very fun or engaging for anyone. It is akin to when someone doesn't do anything as antag for the round (or gets antagged right near the end) and then suddenly decides to attack people right as the shuttle docks. If you want to cause damage such as this in the future, it is my recommendation that you work up to it with smaller, but increasingly hostile acts. Make threats, take a few shots at someone and slip away, be clear that you are going to do something bad if they make for the shuttle. It may end poorly for you, but you'll have provided something exciting for the expedition crew to deal with. To conclude, we will be upholding the warning. You said you wanted to understand what you did wrong, and I hope that Bear and I have been able to explain a little more in-depth where you went wrong in your decisions this round. If there are no further concerns, I will lock and archive this thread in 24 hours.

Hello. I will be handling this complaint. Please be patient while I sift through the logs. Thank you.

Hello, I will be handling this complaint. Can you please be a little clearer on exactly what you wish to accomplish from this complaint? You received no punishment of any form, so I can only ascertain you disagree with Paradox telling you that them stunning you was valid. Is this correct? I'd also like to hear from @ParadoxSpace as well. Regardless, please be patient while I sift through logs of the round. Thank you.

Trial begun as of March 5th, 2020. It will conclude on April 5th, 2020.

Application Denied. Locking and Archiving.

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.