Flamingo

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

I'm fine with this being a rule. It would prevent more issues than it causes if it were a clear ruling. Alb pretty much sums up my thoughts. Ninja and Wizard being on-station characters really breaks the immersion when it's some dude you've been working with for 6 months, and oftentimes other off-station antags like heisters or mercs have no reason being on-station characters. Sure we'd lose out on the occasionally well done on-station heister, but I think overall it's a worthwhile compromise.

Application accepted following a successful trial. Welcome to the team. Locking and Archiving.

Application accepted following a successful trial. Welcome to the team. Locking and Archiving.

Application accepted following a successful trial. Welcome to the team. Locking and Archiving.

Application denied following trial. Applicant was informed of the reasoning and given feedback on how improvements could be made should they wish to reapply at a later date. Locking and Archiving.

Huge +1. I've privately voiced my opinion on this change to matt before, and how I've always wanted it to be done. This would remove the lackluster "alternative" title that was essentially "you can't do much" and replace it with a title more congruent with the rest (x technician). Also just because the name is "maintenance" doesn't mean they can't build things, as Wildkins stated. IRL they are highly trained. I would be okay with changing the name to Engineering Technician, but I think that also is a bit redundant and prefer it how it is. Overall, I don't see this affecting things negatively, really. To address the other half of the argument (adding another alt title that handles "menial" tasks) - I think it's entirely unnecessary. At least to add an engineer alt title anyways. The janitor could totally use one if we so wished, but honestly, ingame, engineers just completely ignore "minor" calls anyways in favor of fixing important shit like walls (unless it's slow). I'd be much more receptive to adding a janitor alt title than another engineering one. At the end of the day, it will only be ignored how maint tech was before this change (except by a very few select people).

Abo already asked what I intended to ask. I also know you already started your trial, but absolute +1. Some of these bugs have existed for literal years, and you've finally done what no one else has and just gone and fixed them. I hope to see you stick around the discords and perhaps as a fellow atmos tech we'll even play in-game together.

I definitely am in agreement that AI as it is currently implemented is harmful to the game, especially when it comes to antags. Too often I have seen AIs instantly bolt down an antagonist at the first sign of trouble. And why shouldn’t they? It would be breaking their laws to let the antag run rampant. You can argue that proper preparation can allow you to avoid some of this — Removing cameras (VERY time consuming to do stealthily, and anyone who argues different is wrong), mapping wires (it still takes time to hack doors. Time security has to come after you). Or setting up signallers for escape routes, which still requires large amounts of preparation and only gives you fixed avenues of movement — but the fact of the matter is that if there’s an AI, the job of the antagonist is exponentially more difficult. I am not saying the AI has to be REMOVED, but the state in which it exists leaves too much room for abuse while still operating within the confines of our rules. I don’t really know personally how it can be fixed, but I think that overall, people don’t want to see the AI removed. They’ve also been (generally) incredibly resistant to a whitelist until this point, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. If it were up to me I’d probably remove it, but I would be content if we reworked some factors to better facilitate antagonist freedom instead. Perhaps fewer cameras in connecting areas (they don’t really need to see every part of every hallway do they?), the ability to have cameras cut out for a few minutes randomly (or through antag influence). And perhaps the implementation of “standard” cameras across most the station (fixed wiring so they can be easily and stealthily disabled), with “high security” cameras implemented how cameras work now, with randomized wires. The high security cameras could even be prevented from cutting out so the AI can always see its key areas. Finally, I think the AI should be whitelisted under the head of staff whitelist. Overall, I think removing it would solve the problem, but I don’t like the cost at which this approach demands, and should be saved for a last resort.

Trial began as of October 6th, 2019. It will last for one month, until November 6th, 2019.

Trial began as of October 6th, 2019. It will last for one month, until November 6th, 2019.

Trial began as of October 6th, 2019. It will last for one month, until November 6th, 2019.

Trial began as of October 6th, 2019. It will last for one month, until November 6th, 2019.