kermit

Sorry for letting this sit a while. We've all had a chance to review comments, logs and come to a decision now. The short version is we expect characters, with the limelight on Security more often, to exercise a lot of caution around vented areas of the ship. For this reason, we've ruled largely in favour of the complaint. In more detail, we came to this decision because we all agreed that Suvek and Deshan pushing into a vented area without protective equipment shows a little bit of a disregard for believable action in the realm of self-preservation. We recognised that the area was – at the time of entering – partially vented and that oxygen masks were taken, but we didn't think these measures were enough as those who entered the partial void were aware that there would be raiders inside moving through/opening shutters and further venting the area. The other 2 officers who did not enter were cautious enough to remain out of the vented area. There was nothing of massive value within the Communal area that could have justified forgoing some self-preservation. None of us believe there was any poor sportsmanship motivating the entry into the area though, just a lack of necessary foresight. As for the firefight and not disengaging despite being in a void, we didn't see any fault here. It was only after Suvek and Deshan entered that, due to the raiders moving through shutters, that the emergency shutters locked behind them. There were attempts made to leave through the shutters, but when actively being engaged, it makes sense for them to race to incapacitate the raiders preventing them from escaping the void, such that they could then locate the tools required to leave the vented area. A note will be added to Evandorf and FluffyGhost's record about exercising said caution around vented areas as Security. All things considered, we didn't really feel the action taken should have been any higher than a note. This'll be locked & archived in 1-2 days if no one has anything to add.

Going back to encrypted comms, one thing to consider is that a lot of traitors tend to buy encrypted comms for different reasons. It, on it's own, isn't a token that shows you've teamed up, as sometimes people buy it for the eavesdropping or to just give updates/warnings. It sounds like they were using encrypted comms to keep you up to speed and appraised of security's behaviour more than anything, which tracks with their surprise when you did go to help out. If, say, a third antagonist had bought encrypted comms earlier in the round for any purpose, then overheard you and the second antagonist talking, that too could be construed as a 'team up' and ticking the 'I know they're a traitor' box, when really your interaction with that third antagonist would have been minimal and wholly disconnected from your actions up to that point. When you're not even working together and your actions/objectives are miles apart, any team up organised over antag-only channels, such as encrypted comms, needs to be communicated in some way to non-antags in the round as part of build up/a story, is my stance on things. Encrypted comms on it's own isn't really sufficient, unless you've agreed to work towards the same objectives and you're both doing the same/very similar actions, and it's clearly communicated through these actions that 'Oh yeah, this is a joint-job with 2 people working against us' or whatever.

This sounds fair enough then. The problem I had was you inserting yourself into this situation when there had been very little buildup/roleplay leading up to it, just the 5 minute 'Here's what I'm doing' and occasional updates over enc. comms to the point even the other antagonist wasn't really expecting your help. From the perspective of everyone else in the round, you appeared out of the blue shooting everyone, when before you weren't on anyone's radar, minus the intern because you had psionic-punched them. Arriving to a firefight makes things tricky, yeah, but I think with the lack of roleplay/build-up/story towards you inserting yourself into that situation, the best thing imo as someone who also plays traitor would've been to back off. You mention the hypothetical of breaking him out after his detention; that would have been fine because it's not a 0 to 100, it's not firing on everyone without any regard of their involvement/them being bystanders, and it establishes to everyone else in the round that you and the other traitor are working together. You didn't work together, you had different objectives, you just knew that they were also a traitor. I guess you were both using psionics, but with how the psionics were used they seemed more like a weapon/means to an end instead of something that was deliberate to connect you both as working together. I personally don't think it's a good enough reason to interevne on their behalf, but let's say it's enough to establish a team up between you two; you still didn't establish this team-up in anyway to other people in the round, there was no roleplay/story which connected you two. They got themself detained, you had ticked the box of saying 'We're traitors' to each other, so you used that to sprint over and shoot/nearly kill everyone involved or bystanding the arrest. I don't think it's enough, though maybe Garn will rule differently.

The reason I opted to go with some kind of moderative action in the end is because the basis of this conversation to team up was a 5 minute 'What are we both doing?' exchange where you never actually agreed to do anything together, and instead do things separately. The other antagonist wasn't expecting you to help them and expressed some surprise in OOC channels when you did. Your actions and escalation that round were entirely independent from the other antagonists, and it was not communicated in any way - through actions or verbally - that you were working together. I also don't see encrypted comms as a token of working together, as pretty much every traitor with some experience buys the encrypted comms key, even if it's just to spy on Security/Command comms. In addition to this, your last action before running at the scene of arrest with the psionic pistol was punching an intern; there is no escalation of conflict, it was like, ten to one-hundred. Did you have a reason to go guns blasting? Yes, they were another psionic ally, which is fine. I do think this reason was retroactive on your part, as the primary reason you gave me was that you knew they were a traitor in the OOC sense. Was this reason conveyed to others in the round as part of the antagonist's role of storytelling? I would argue not. You near-killed several people and fired upon first responders even after all of security had disengaged, you later ran into Medical then began shooting surgeons. Did you make an effort to explore other avenues before resorting to killing, especially to bystanders? I would argue not. The reason I opted to go with a 3 day antagonist ban is because you have numerous notes or warnings on antagonist conduct over a period of months. At least 3 of these relate to escalation, others were in the same vein as not telling a story through antagonist actions. Going off note/warning history and my own experiences with you, there is very little/the bare minimum attempt of roleplay behind your actions and, while it's unfair to expect every someone's antagonist round to have an intricate story or amazing roleplay, often the case with your antagging is there is little attempt at a story and little effort at roleplay, with you viewing things more through the mechanical/fun lens - absolutely fine, when there's some effort put into a story behind it or the proper escalation/roleplay to go with it. Mass-shooting everyone you can see demands a lot more escalation/story than what you'd done.

I asked to get this turned into a staff complaint given it more concerns my decision in a ticket, so I'll give my side of things now that's done. Addressing Loorey throughout this, much of what Comet said above is what I observed personally and then had quickly clarified to me in a ticket. They were unluckily caught out by Security quite early and were on the backfoot, attempted to take a hostage which didn't go to plan, then were trying to just flee. Your HoS ran after them and made us of the AI to bolt doors behind Comet as they fled; this backfired on you as you were then bolted into telecomms with Comet's fleeing ninja. That's enough justification for Comet to kill your HoS after you got locked into telecomms together. Comet mentioned it was accidental, but even purposely this would have been fine really. I can't have expected Comet to read your mind that you intended to pause the previous firefight and resume diplomacy and, in either case, conflict isn't an on/off switch that gets reset everytime someone chooses to dial things back. Neither was Comet expected to always make the second move and be reactionary to Command/Security; antagonists can make the first move against security, if they have a reason. So, going by the rules: Did Comet have a reason to kill your HoS? Yes, you were pursuing them after they attempted to pose as a captain/take a hostage. Had Comet been trying to generate some kind of story before resorting to combat/killing? Yes, they had a plan involving posing as a captain/XO, unfortunately it didn't go to plan. Being killed/removed from the rounds despite your wishes/expectations/sense of fun isn't a consideration; antagonists have enough to consider (rules, their ingame plan, etc) and it is impossible to cater to everyone player's sense of what is the 'right way to play antagonist' or what is fun. That was the basis behind my decision and me saying 'antagonists can execute security on-the-spot if they're in a fight'. Admittedly, I may not have taken the time to thoroughly explain the decision to you in the ticke.

I do like this idea, however I think if we're to make these events regular, then it'd be a necessity to have a proper opposing force ship, instead of having what looks like something slapped together in 5 minutes lol. The current ship we've had used for shipcombat events ends up being held together with duct tape and BuildMode because it's so exceptionally easy for the ammo room to blow up, the helm consoles to be destroyed, and the event-running admins have to work overtime to replenish ammo, rejuvinate the opposing volunteers, etc, just to prevent the event ending too early. Shipcombat events really don't work without admin intervention as they are right now.

I don't really think this should be enforced as a policy and should be left up to command in-round. Medical shouldn't have to pick favourites from either medical or security, and simply treat whoever's most likely to be taken out of the round. The goal is to keep everyone in-round. The IC lore reason of dystopic megacorporate setting was mentioned, but if you're keeping the setting in mind, it probably makes more sense for antagonists to be saved over officers, as antagonists can be interrogated to unveil security flaws, gather information on the opposing party, whatever fluff you can think of. An officer can just be replaced alongside a sad but 'they were so heroic' message sent to their family. 'Security are more valuable than the antagonists' is a bit reductive. As a captain, I generally remind Medical to actually follow triage and, if it is the antagonists that are more heavily injured, to prioritise them, because those are the ones I need alive to get information out of, not the officers who've just served their function aboard the vessel and probably aren't going to be needed again. Different characters will have different outlooks and justifications for prioritising or deprioritising antagonist treatment – why remove nuance by forcing a decision via policy? The gameplay side of things mentioned was you need your injured crew up and out of Medical as soon as possible to go back out responding to antagonists. Throwing triage out the window for a policy which prioritises crew, especially officers, just reinforces medical being a revolving door for security: come in injured, immediately healed and hunting antagonists again, no consequences from previous injuries. It'll result in less crew deaths, further preventing things like militias/evacs/DBs/deltas, which are already rare, and are dire situations I find interesting to have my characters interact within. Antagonists lately have already been encouraged – by some security players themselves too – to go for head PBs and to kill confirm, because this is really the only way you can win any ground as an antagonist and contribute to round escalation, as Medical is already incredibly good at ensuring security can get straight back into the fray.

Physician and pharmacist are too different of roles to merge, in my opinion. If the only part of gameplay I want to access is the chemistry side of things, I can do that as a pharmacist, and never have to touch the GTR. By merging pharmacist and physician, sure, this role now has more work cut out for it, but now there is no single role that can access any chemistry side of gameplay, besides making a scientist who specialises in exploratory chemistry, but there's virtually no direction to be had in the exploratory chem lab. I don't want to have to play physician (or medical technician, as proposed) - and all the GTR work which comes with that - just to play the little part of Medical I like, pharmacy, which now I'd have to fight over for with all the other physicians on the manifest. I'd rather see surgeon and physician merged, if the problem is physician having to little to do. Granodd mentions security as only being delegated 2 ways, however they forgot warden, which is similar to pharmacist in some regards, in that they are a gatekeeper to advanced security tools, less-involved in the 'intense' aspect of a department, have direct-entry to BrigRP, and are sometimes seen as the more roleplay-focused role compared to officer. If, for whatever reason, warden and officer were merged, there is no longer a direct-entry role to the chill side of BrigRP, and you're stuck having to handle everything that an officer has to handle. Some people probably wouldn't like that, and it's largely the same case as pharmacist and physician as the roles have a lot in common. Drawing attention to Ping's point, never has there been so many chemicals not only interspersed throughout Medical, but also Engineering and Operations now. Chemicals just sitting around, you can go on to include all the chemicals that have, this past year, been added to the ordering terminals, such as peridaxon, but also warehouse spawns. The idea that Medical is totally gelded without a pharmacist doesn't really hold that much weight. It makes things trickier, but that can be said for any department that is lacking a role. Maybe a hot take, but I've sometimes preferred pharmacist-less medical, as it raises the stakes for command and security, as they no longer have free tickets out of any and every injury they receive at the hands of an antagonist - death is an important part of antagonists escalating and contributes to more interesting rounds.

As a long-time circuitry nerd, I'm actually not fond of this idea tbh. I think something like this should come second to reviewing circuitry as-is right now. A lot of components, such as reagent pumps, just don't work and some components crash or severely lag the server, such as smoke generators which had to be removed recently. There's also just not that much going for circuitry right now; medical components are still tuned to PointMed, for example. Regarding the time element, while it's frustrating, working around a time limit is as important as the wiring itself in my opinion. Complex stuff can be slimmed down, and if you make it enough, a lot of the wiring eventually becomes muscle memory and you can crack them out a lot quicker – in my experience, at least. Main takeaway is the first point though. Should circuitry be looked into, all the flaws ironed out, updated for our current medical system, and some more applications possible, then I'd be happier to see this. I will non-commitally say that I may take a look into some of the components I know to be borked, and see if I can sort them out, but I've yet to reverse engineer circuitry code.

As a science player, the refinery being moved onto the shuttle sounds like a pretty great idea tbh. Anything to not have to wait until 1:30 for materials.

The usual escalation was followed for repeat incidents of the same kind: a note, then a warning. Baldos has been spoken to a couple times this week and last about not properly roleplaying antagonist actions. Namely, one round where k'ois syringes were fired at people without the due escalation, and one round where they late-joined as a changeling just before transfer and immediately went loud.

Helloo, I'll refresh my explanation of why I placed the warning. Changelings are expected to be stealthy and supposed to kill for genomes, that's totally right, and is why I commented that changeling is probably the most difficult gamemode we have here on the Aurora. Difficult, as the playstyle makes it easy to stray from the rule you got warned for: You mentioned to me that, when you killed and took a genome from a character, you hadn't said a word to them at all, and just entered the room and killed them for the genome point; this forgoes the "interesting roleplay" the rule calls for. I can't remember my exact wording in my ticket explanation, though the warning recapped the important parts of what I said, which was that "interesting roleplay" doesn't need to be a drawn out monologue or anything, something as simple as, for example, a few odd mannerisms/actions, reminiscent of the body-horror theme behind changeling, while engaging with a victim – something that just grasps their attention and clues them into what may about to happen, but not be overt enough to warrant them immediately screaming 'there's someone behaving weird in the chapel'. It's a hard balance, especially as changeling, where you're not afforded tools which can be used to better guarantee success – ie. traitor radio jammers, vampire hyponotise, cult incapacitation talismans – and I can sympathise with that, as someone who tries to regularly play the varied antag types to stay in-touch. I think a common fear antagonists have is that any clueing in will result in you being immediately outed over the Common channel, but the hope is that the majority of players will give a modicum of leeway to antagonists up until you've drawn a weapon/armblade and are willing to roleplay along with you, even if there are cases where that doesn't always happen sadly.

I agree with the earlier comment about Urgoth being a bit inappropriate for OM. That said, I'm really happy you've applied <3 It's always a joy seeing a new Melteshonok character and it's very clear to me that a lot of creative thought goes into a lot of them. Joseph Coldsmith is the one I and perhaps the majority of people are familiar with, given their crew-facing role as a chef, and slowly learning about their backstory through some of my characters has been really fun, and actually rather emotional at times when you've tied it into antagonist gimmicks in the past. Gongwue is another memorable character, though I haven't had the chance to interact with them on a deeper level with any of my characters sadly. There have been a few interactions or characters that've been a bit questionable – Urgoth definitely was when they were newly introduced, but you've ironed them out – especially towards the beginning of this year when you were still getting re-acquainted with the server's climate, but you've acknowledge that in your app and it's been nice seeing you settle in and find your niche. I would be really interested to see new characters of yours in command/representative roles. +1 from me.

Radiation green lighting, and probably other coloured lighting, isn't visible.

The lights on gas cannisters can be seen on top of the AIs static vision-fog-whatever, so you can see the cannister's light through walls. Noticed this last night, but I can't remember if it predates your Layers testmerge - I'll stick up a regular bug report if it's unrelated.

EAL would fit the law better, yeah, and I haven't got any more 'mean' ones to add to the list. Carver makes a good point about the uncomfy laws. I'd add "Refer to the Head of Security as \"Dad\" - already tired of the opposite of this, where it's an AI/borg named Mother/Father/similar. That would be the last of my constructive feedback. Diverging a bit, I do agree with Peppermint. Ion laws as they stand now are usually jokey, griefy or inconveniencing. Not thrilled seeing more added as our current line-up of ion laws is already problematic/annoying, and would like to see them all changed really.

I'm not a fan of any of the ion laws really – current and proposed – however the only ones I can offer proper criticism for are: "The truth is false and the false is truth. Speak only the truth." - My immediate interpretation of this is to just not talk, which isn't fun for the AI player and means the ion law is never discovered to be fixed. "[prob(50)?"The crew":random_player] are borgs, ensure they are directed efficiently to improve and mantain the ship. Talk with your borgs only in binary." - Similar to the above, removes any chance of anyone discovering the ion law to fix it, and just results in a silent/absent AI because they're stuck talking in binary. If there are no borgs, the AI is just talking into a void. "Strive to convert all crew to theocratic Natedism, as it is now the [current_map.company_name]'s mandatory religion." - Natedism falls out of general lore knowledge and into Tajara lore knowledge, it's only complicated more given Theocratic Natedism isn't a thing (I think?). AIs not knowledgable in Tajara lore are either going to botch this or subtly ignore it. Moroz Holy Tribunal would probably be better, just because more people know what it is - also funny because it'd be an AI preaching synth-hate. "Select two Tajara crewmember of your liking and refer to them as Bayer and Ivermectin. If there is a Tajara Consular, ensure it's one of the picks." - Already handled. "[random_player] is such a disappointment. Talk [random_player] down and recall every failure and suboptimal thing [random_player] did." - of all the individual-targetted ion laws, this one's plain mean and just not fun to play with for both victim and AI.

The less harsh vote alarm and bwoink sounds. Could go a step further and have a toggle between harsh and gentle, so people tabbed out don't miss them. Also the warnings staff get when a ticket has been left unattended - 'X's ticket has been left without response for 10 minutes' or whatever it was. I also really like that one section in one of the helm consoles where the various shuttles can create missions and specify destination, etc. The credits at roundend were also super cool, but that's probably just because they were novel and accompanied by cool music. I can see them getting dull pretty fast or just not fitting the Aurora's atmosphere. I'm on the fence. Probably not worth it tbh.

I agree with a lot of the previous points made against 2IC XO, I won't repeat them all. HoP being renamed to XO and the connotation that has is the only reason I believe we're here. Were it renamed to something more befitting it's function aboard the ship – managing the helm and its staff, managing service (though I'm all for an Operations & Service Manager per Schev's comment) – we may not have even arrived here imo, as the notion that XO is an unofficial 2IC would never have been reinforced. I don't believe 2IC XO solves any problems with the role, and is simply a change 'because that's what XOs are in real life, it makes sense'. One argument I've seen elsewhere is that this reduces the HoS/Captain monopoly on the round, but a 2IC XO doesn't change the fact they aren't meant to weigh-in on Security matters (which accounts for nearly every issue that comes up during a round) – XOs immediately take point when anything overmap related occurs, and Security/the HoS laughably sit to the site waiting for the boarding actions which won't come lol. Another argument mentioned here, I believe, is that XOs haven't got much to do, though I don't see what making XO 2IC adds to the role besides making them a switchboard for the captain. The biggest issue I personally have, and most relevant to me as a captain player, is that it's really not gonna leave much for captains to do most rounds. The majority of a captain's duty in any round is managing headless departments, which would now fall under a 2IC XO who becomes a barrier to interaction if you respect the proposed chain of command and avoid overstepping. It reduces captain to yes/no'ing anything over the Command channel, but even that can be rare and depends on how talkative command are in a round. The above said, I wouldn't enjoy playing XO or Captain as much as they are in their current states if the chain of command was altered. Of course it's hard to say without it being trialled, but I get the feeling this is just going to lead to really awkward dynamics between XOs and Captains, as well as a lot of bickering. As for what I think would actually do some good for the XO role: I think renaming XO to something First Officer-like (but that's the other thread), remapping the Bridge to have defined XO and Captain command stations (already being done thanks to LordPwner) to cement the XOs position as it's head and ensuring captain's don't steal the most attractive duty of XO (managing the helm), and taking Service away from XO to allow them to focus 100% on the helm, will make the XO more enjoyable to play than just making them the captain's lapdog, and gives them all of the overmap content to work with. This relieves the captain of the duty of coordinating the helm, which isn't their job per the chain of command while the XO as a role in any state exists. The biggest issue I had as someone trying to get into the XO role was captains just yoinking 50% of my job which also happened to be the most interesting 50%. Amending that will do more than making XOs 2IC imo, and is something I've been trialling in-game which I've gleamed has some positive effect for both captain and XO alike.

I was writing a suggestion thread earlier about the second command workstation after that round together where my captain proposed the idea and trialled it w/ the help of engineering. Glad to see you beat me to it and are actually up for mapping it, lol. I think having a clear XO command station closest to the BCs and a captain command station further back will help with cement the XOs authority on the Bridge more than it currently is, as too often I see XOs pushed out of the way and captains sapping away the XOs most interesting duty. For that reason alone I'd like to see this. I can't speak much on the design overall, but I do think it's important one person should still be able to pilot the ship on the lonesome, just keeping lowpop but also the occasional antag hijacker in mind, even if hijacking gimmicks can be a little jank. That said, even spaced out, the pilot can just pilot at a slower speed to make up for time spent running between consoles :shrug:

Active: Naalp Aliori-Riqaij'aal (Captain) - Space trucker grandskrell with stories to tell. Skilled cryptographer? Rosenwyn Edevane (Captain) - Hot headed, submariner captain. Bronny Sadar (Captain) - Yet another captain... also: fungiiii. Aqii Vuroq (Scientist) - Punished skrell & circuitry nerd. Overlooked mutineer? Qul Vu'xui (Security Officer) - Captain Coalition. Lou Rosevear (Research Director) - Cytherean science personality. Highlights: Robert de Winter (Captain) - Cloning defects & marriage problems. Death by major lore retcon. Si-Qari Volq'luushx (Captain) - Skruit captain. Faith Windsor (Pharmacist) - Wormholes, lightning and occultism. Vu'xii Qos-Nuqux'nuul (Pharmacist) - On quickdial for Orion's brightest and most sober hangar techs. Guusje van Willigen (Pharmacist) - Literally had a google drive of 80 pre-written prescripttion slips at some point. Hugh Oswald (Chief Medical Officer) - Wholesome father figure. Nose in newspaper adverts. Ka'Akaix'Lyrk C'thur (Scientist) - Zircuitzz, again. Tell me what you think of them.

Okay, I've lifted the ban after getting a little more insight from the EsotericPurple ckey and the discord you're active in our community discord on. VPN use is discouraged here though, if you must, you must. Should it be hit by an automatic ban though, you may have to drop it. I'll archive this in ~24 hours if nothing else is added.

You were flagged for VPN/Proxy use and also had a few other common signs of ban evasion. Is there any particular reason you're using a VPN; is it necessary to play? Have you used a previous ckey to play on the server before?

Sorted it out, this was a fault on my end. Remember to follow the unban request format if there's a next time, please. Locking & archiving.

I've had the benefit of being able to play with, get to know, and enjoy most characters of Eddy's so far. I find them to be grounded in lore and fun to interact with, and it feels like a lot of thought has been put into their characters, of which Konstantyn is definitely the one who's been the most present lately. I have a 'good' understanding of Dominian lore, perhaps not as intricate as some of the others posting here as I don't tend to use that knowledge via on-ship characters, but I've not really stumbled into any glaring errors in Konstantyn's design that've made me stop and wonder. I've found Eddy portrays the going from noble to shitcreek in mining fairly well, and their reasoning for getting a spot in Command makes sense to me. I'm sure I don't know all of Konstantyn's story as I don't really interrogate characters in conversations, but it made sense to me and was coherent. As for Konstantyn not fitting in Command, I don't really see that; the distaste between edict breakers and nobles is mutual, but that doesn't excluse Dominian nobles from Command positions, and Konstantyn's offenses are oh-so-tame compared to some other command personnel I've seen. Frankly, I'd really like to see the dynamic between an exile and noble command member if done in a proper way, I don't think it's something I've seen before. Those are my positive notes on Konstantyn's character which I hope is encouraging to some degree. Regarding command play which is arguably more important here, I think Eddy'll do fine. From what I've seen personally in-round, discussions I've had with them, and also what they've said above, it feels like they know how to balance action and not going too hard on antagonists. The few times I have had them as iOM they've done a great job: they're a reliable option for the spot and they know the ins-and-outs of the Operations department; they did a good job in a fairly chaotic round too, helping out where needed, offering to handle announcements; they offered some interesting things to do as an OM, such as teaching some of the newer waves of hangar technicians how to load the guns. I've not really got any doubts when it comes to Eddy's characters or command conduct. It's a pretty easy +1, I'd love to see what kind of characters you could come up with for command roles, best of luck.