Flamingo

Locking and archiving.

Thank you for your input as the wizard in this situation, but at this time, it will not affect our decision on the complaint. Our issue doesn’t stem from them assisting you, but rather with how they went about it.

I enjoy interacting with Zion, and while I’ve not met your other character, I am sure they’re equally as enjoyable to RP with. You do a good job of keeping people immersed in the setting with your use of emotes, and I am sure given the chance, you would perform admirably with an IPC whitelist. +1 from me. Now for some questions. What made you want to go with the KE brand, from an OOC standpoint? Building on what Sleepy asked, how has K.E.G gotten along with the fact that he can be easily replaced in this day and age? (“We’ll just buy another one!”) Best of luck on your application.

Alright, after giving both sides some time to discuss, [mention]Datamatt[/mention] and I have come to the conclusion that while the Raiders in question could definitely have provided more RP to the station, it isn't worth applying punishment to all of them for what amounts to a single sub-par round. Unfortunately, the nature of the game means that sometimes rounds will go poorly for one side or another, and involve not as much RP as we've come to expect. I think the creation of this complaint alone has brought to their attention that they should try their best to drive a story for the station, and perhaps next time they will be able to come up with a gimmick that allows for more diverse interactions between them and the crew. If this were handled in-game, it likely would have been a nudge in the right direction by an administrator or moderator through the use of AOOC, rather than bwoinking them directly, and I think this discussion pretty much amounts to a nudge in the right direction for future rounds. If there are no additional concerns raised, I will be locking and archiving in 24 hours.

Alright, if I am understanding correctly, [mention]Ron[/mention] went AFK as a head of staff because he was distracted IRL. He made no attempt (even if going AFK was unintentional) to contact staff, likely because he forgot. He proceeded to not return for 90 minutes, until he was cryo'd after it was ahelped. A warning was applied to his ckey for this. From the rules: Warnings are generally applied on the first offense for issues where the offending player has logged off or is otherwise not immediately contactable. The intention is that upon logging in, they will see it and understand what they did wrong. Warnings additionally expire after a given period of three months (four for severe). Head of Staff players are whitelisted and held to a higher standard. The expectation is that you will participate in the round when playing these roles rather than going AFK. No one joined as the HoP afaik. What did the ahelp say? Was it a "hey this guys afk." passive ahelp or a "Hey this guys afk and I want to join as the role." I'm assuming the former because no one joined as the HoP. In fact, I believe it was because the wizard stripped me of stuff while I was afk. I'm almost certain of it. No one wanting to actively play the role of Head of Personnel doesn't excuse the fact that you went AFK for 90+ minutes without informing anyone. We still punish people for beating each other up, even if both parties consent. This has always been the case. As it stands, I don't see an issue with the way [mention]sebkillerDK[/mention] handled this situation, and will uphold the warning. You are not being prevented from playing the game further, only told that the behavior is unacceptable, and that in the future, you should at the very least discord message one of us to take care of things for you. Unless any other concerns are raised, I will be locking and archiving this in 24 hours.

Hello. I will be taking this complaint.

[mention]Datamatt[/mention] and I will be taking this complaint.

Alright, after some time spent discussing the matter, as well as reviewing all of the logs, [mention]DatBerry[/mention] and I are going to resolve this complaint without administrative action. We reasoned that Chief Engineer Manfred Hayden's actions were acceptable given the circumstances. He did not go out of his way to blatantly self-antag, but instead was compelled to act for the benefit of the antag, by the antag. This is acceptable to happen in round, and given the announcements of the round, there was little reason to trust NanoTrasen as a company. Hayden went on to work on talking down the AI with the help of the nun, rather than simply emittering it. While not necessarily the most effective way of dealing with a rogue AI, he nevertheless made a concentrated effort to deal with the situation. If no further points are raised, we will be closing this in 24 hours time.

I am going to be refusing this appeal on the grounds that you have not replied and it has been a week. You can appeal at a later date. Appeal denied.

After going through the relevant logs, [mention]DatBerry[/mention] and I have come to the conclusion that overall [mention]Nikov[/mention]'s actions were justified. The logs revealed that during his playtime as CE, he was trying to speak to the AI, rather than just killing it, and by the time killing the AI was justified, there was a borg, as well as the turrets inside the core. That said, our review of the logs surfaced some questionable incidents by Nikov. While self-preservation is indeed a high priority, and he played that understandably, we were a bit concerned by his reactions to the Captain's death, as well as his handling of the Head of Personnel. Specifically, when he threw them for "time-out", and his reaction after the AI exploded him was to laugh and tell the ai that causing people to explode kills them. As such, we would like to ask Nikov his thoughts on the matter, and what led him to react in the way that he did?

You’ve racked up a lot of notes, warnings, and bans in the short period of time that you’ve been on the server, mostly for self-antagonistic behavior. You didn’t seem to learn from the warnings and bans that you received. How can I be sure that you will learn from this one? It is one thing to apologized for self-antagging, but another thing entirely to actually change your behavior.

Coalf has pretty much said exactly what I wanted to say. I would like a set of guidelines to follow as a member of staff, when approving people's jobhopping/backstories/whatever. This is both because I find it unfair that two members of staff can come to a different conclusion, and as Coalf said, I don't want to have to deal with complaints about not approving/approving whatever backstory. I don't think that players should have to shop around for the right staffmember to approve their character's jobs, and I don't think that staffmembers should have to argue about it amongst themselves. We have better things to be doing with our time than arguing if a security officer can also work in the garden or not. That said, I am not sure a "qualifications ceiling" is the right way to go about things. I unfortunately cannot offer another in-character alternative, because I simply don't know at this time.

I would like this change removed. It hasn't really affected me ingame whatsoever, but that's only because I've been playing synthetics as of late. The idea of getting heart damage from eating junkfood is absurd over the span of 2 hours. Chef is already an underplayed role. Requiring one to curb the heart damage is a bit of a lame solution.

The interview:

Hello, I will be handling your interview.

M.A.K.E is one of my favorite characters, period. They are well known for wearing a poncho already, and I think it would add to their character to have a neat little custom one with a hood. It is not something that is outlandish, and would add for some neat rp. +1 from me.

I held off on making the first reply even though it was me who pushed them to make the application because I wanted to see what concerns other people raised. With that said, I can confidently say that I think Ayden would make a good chief engineer character. This isn't just coming from me because they are my friend, but because they have demonstrated their ability several times to understand what is required of a head of staff. While eab may be inexperienced on Aurora, I think their knowledge of the game mechanics speaks for itself, and their activity coming into the server has, for lack of a better word, been explosive. The fact of the matter is that chief engineer is a job that is sorely lacking in regulars, unlike many of the other roles. I think, personally, that we need more motivated players, and eab is nothing if not motivated. As for some of the concerns raised in this thread; I find myself agreeing with bygone. Not every character needs a conflict in their backstory, and furthermore, Ayden has (from what I've seen anyways) had conflict in his backstory. He just chooses not to share it OOCly because he doesn't want to plaster his backstory everywhere. Something I admire and believe we are sorely lacking in. Overall, this app gets a nice shiny +1 from me. I think you'll do swell in the role, and I look forward to seeing you grow into it.

Hey guys sorry for the delay in getting to this, Valentine's Day and the days leading up to it are some of the busiest times of the year for me. I am going to keep my responses brief, because I am both very tired, and I don't think I need to argue much about the actual interaction, which is better suited to a player complaint. To start, the reasons for your complaint: I am not required to inform you of placing a note on your ckey, as they simply exist to keep a record of what a person was talked to about. The note in question is open about the fact that I could not look into the situation fully, it is simply there to state that the interaction happened, and inform future readers that you were reminded to not kill people without proper escalation. That said, if I had thought without a doubt that it was gank, you would have received a warning or ban (based on your previous notes/warnings), due to the severity of the offense.

Locking and Archiving.

Alright, after concluding our investigation, [mention]Exia[/mention] and I have decided we're going to expunge your warning. It seems you had sufficient IC reason for your actions, even if they lead to violence during the shuttle transfer. It was unfortunate that the round was unable to be delayed. My only recommendation is that if you encounter a similar situation, sticking around into the next round if the situation is unresolved may prevent this sort of thing happening in the future. I'll be locking and archiving this in 24 hours if there are no additional comments.

haha same

Hello. [mention]Exia[/mention] and I will be handling this complaint.

Raymond is a character that I've spent quite a lot of time interacting with both ingame and out of game. He is an incredibly sentimental person from my own experience, but he's also very reserved, and isn't the type of character to go around flaunting things. I think these items are not only believable, but also something that Raymond himself would feasibly carry around. Plus, this is two less slots he has for becoming a walking armory during rev. What's not to love? +1 from me.

As Amory stated, this is a believable item for a HoS to possess and bring to work. It holds sentimental value and is functional at that. Rifler herself is an interesting character that I've only recently been able to explore, and I'm excited to learn more, especially about the connection to another established character this custom item implies. +1 from me.

Interview with the applicant.