There b pirates

Garn, I have nothing more to say for this case. I've laid it out in front of you as it happened. I'm not sure that you are convinced, but I am sure that I've seen quite a few others that are....

now call me dense, but does a red PDA really justify anything? or does it make it easier for the staff to let you off the hook?

Alright, You seem to want to argue about the IC actions rather than how the ticket itself was handled, I can play that. We can talk about OOC issues later in this thread. The big disparity we seem to be having is what we think normal behavior is. An the disparity seems to come from the fact that I think that acting like the people on public freakout is valid RP, but you seem to want to justify that it is not. You will not tell me why. You have not given a reason. This spans across multiple tickets, and while the rules deep it perfectly valid, it seems that there is an inherent bias to the contrary. why?

Ah yes, I hate the number of LRP people on this planet. I Wish Earth had HRP servers. It's almost as if people do actually have anger issues in real life, and they really act on them. That's not the point though, is it? The point is that ShesTrying, instead of trying to help me on my ahelp, decided to tell me how bad my RP was based on about 10 seconds of interaction and reading.

It's common practice for most terrorists, domestic or international to have a null activation device instead of an active activation device. I can explain what this means very simply. Say you've got a classical terrorist situation where you've got a guy wearing a bomb vest and he's got the classic red button and if he presses the button the bomb vest explodes. This isn't how smart bomb threats are made. Smart bombs are made in the way such that the bomb user presses down the button and the bomb only explodes when the button is let go of. This means that if said assailant is handled to roughly or shot, then the bomb has a 100% chance of going off. I suggest more items like this be added to the Aurora. For example current grenades will go off in your hand, the primary example being EMP grenades. I think it would be more interesting if you could hold the grenade for an indefinite amount of time. This would encourage role play by ensuring antagonists are never completely out of bargaining power, which is commonly the case after a certain point in the round. Another suggestion, could be a variant of c4 which only detonates when the user hits critical status, or a health level that is nearly unrecoverable. Obviously C4 doesn't do much damage to the environment, and I couldn't imagine this would be fair if it did any more damage than C4 does. This would be similar to the ninjas self destructive device embedded in the hard suit, but obviously much less devastating. Another suggestion could be perhaps a simple melee weapon such as a bat a stun baton or something similar which detonates a small EMP when dropped while activated. There's literally limitless possibility for items that do things when they exit somebody's grip. I think it also fits the lore aspect, especially seeing as how syndicate traitors which aren't Auto antagonists spawn with a suicide pill. The suicide pill serves the same function has any of the items above. That is: literally if things get out of hand do something about it. Personally I think things that are very deadly shouldn't be liberally added. I think things that are very visible very clear and promote roleplay over action would be the correct way to go. The bomb vest is the best example of this. It's very clear when somebody is wearing such a vest, it's very clear when they're holding the button, and it's very clear that if this person lets the button go, something bad will happen. It's to the favor of both parties in this case to encourage role play, as if action is taken, the antagonist dies no matter what, and some of the personnel have a higher chance I'm getting injured or themselves dying. It allows our to be put into the antagonist sans without say new king the station and running. It allows antagonists to up the stakes for both themselves and anyone posing a threat to them. It gives everybody a better reason to roleplay and not do anything stupid. And it gives any antagonist a coup de gras, which most are missing these days anyway. Currently this is missing, because the absolute worst thing that happens in any case is security shoots the antagonist down with a lot of bullets, and 30 seconds later the transfer shuttles called. With such devices implemented, this wouldn't be the case. Anywho thanks for reading up my suggestion for null activation devices, I hope to get some valuable input.

BYOND Key: ForAFriend Game ID: b47-apbT Player Byond Key/Character name: Que Tup'Xequal'Valurex [Head of Security] Staff involved: readthisnameplz, simontheminer Did you attempt to adminhelp the issue at the time? If so, what was the known action taken by administration/moderation? Yes, And the Ahelps were deemed as an "IC" issue, and I was advised to take the complaint here. Approximate Date/Time: Incident 1: [02:46:22] Incident 2: [04:28:41] Incident one: I was happily on my way to the cell where I was supposed to be charged, when I ask the HoS what I was charged with. The HoS Responded with nothing the first time, while I was in processing, and something about 8 charges, which is clearly made up but okay, maybe they're busy. I ask later, and they claim they've misplaced my Id and cannot tell me what I'm charged with. "oopsie"! The HoS then demotted me without the HoP's permission and sent me on my way with a generic ID, very very illegal. Incident two: I was getting into the elevator, and officer comes up and shoots me without saying anything, and without provcation. Ok. Ahelped. Resolved. I get taken in again. HoS this time hands out two charges that they cannot prove, and once again, have pulled out of their ass. I get held until transfer. That was terrible. Overall, This HoS has handed out multiple charges on a whim, illegally demoted me, and was overall just trying to say things to get me held. So say that this is questionable, is an understatement, to say that I just don't understand what the player was going through would be false. If you cannot find a legitimate reason to do something, it's your job to delegate those tasks to your subordinates. don't spit things out your ass, especially when your job is to take fun away from other people.

Beepsky is a little more proactive, dangerous, and mobile than your average coffee machine.

the bot didn't brig me for 10 minutes, it had me in the elevator, and it kept stunning me so I couldn't escape. My character suffered brain damage because of how long beepsky kept stunning me.

added more info to the OP

BYOND Key: ForAFriend Staff BYOND Key: ShesTrying Game ID: b42-aLUJ Reason for complaint:Gate-keeping what a "sane person" would do, and ignoring the purpose of an ahelp. Evidence/logs/etc: - - see logs around 4:50 station time - - Additional remarks: Railroaded my Ahelp to complain to me about how bad my RP was and to tell me what they thought a sane person would do, and then proceeded to not reasonably conclude what I originally Ahelped for, instead opting to close the ticket without further help. In this case, ShesTrying railroaded the ahelp to say that destroying a beepsky robot was not a sane thing to do. I told them that, in this case, it was, since beepsky had me in a stun lock for the first 10 minutes of the round (cnaym witnessed this), I said it was plausible to want revenge, especially on a dumb robot.

above said, if you have any suggestions for me, do tell. I shall listen.

I see that clearly I'm not going to get through to anyone in this case, so let me do the disciplinary work by providing suggestions on how to hadle future interactions. I may or may not be in the right here, but god damn, there's a whole space whale for improvement. Take it or leave it. You'll be better off if you take it. guaranteed. Suggestions: Instead of trying to say that there are no rules against an action, try asking the player where they got the idea for the rules. Perhaps they may know something, or mis-understand something If this does not work, then (and I cannot stress this enough) make sure that the player understands that the other players are trying their best. Most of the time, players are trying to do what's right. Instead of saying "it's the way it is bcuz that's the way it is", tell the player why it is. show some rules, give them a chance to read up. You're not helping anyone by keeping such knowledge to yourself. "It's too late to do anything" is better than "I'm not going to do anything". by 100 times. Question the rules on these matters, not the players. players don't mean jack, and their motives don't mean jack. their actions are the only thing that should determine moderator intervention. Instead of stating that you know something as a fact, ask how the other person know something as a fact. perhaps you'll see a flaw in their understanding. ask the player how they think the situation should be handled. I'd be hard pressed to find a quicker way to come to a amicable decision on any matter than to ask people what they want.

Right,, I want you to show me where you got security threat from. If there's rules, I want to read them so that this does not happen again. If they're not in the rules, can you tell me how you came to this conclusion?

Right, and I'm failing to see a rational way to agree with this... Imagine one day, your phone has a notification: >I am here to hold a special demonstration in the meeting hall. This will take place at [some time]. It is very important that everyone attends. We could very well decide the future of liberties of [city where you reside]. now, nowhere in the first world would anyone be put on random search for doing that. Questioned? Maybe. but not plucked and searched. nowhere. no one citizen (excluding mark zuckerburg) has the power to do this. and now you have this notification. you tell me how reliable this is, and you tell me how much of a threat this poses. this is all in the realm of opinion argument though. The facts are: HoP wanted to search me. HoP turned the status to blue such that they could search me and bypass centcom (still a huge no-no). Security illegally detained me and searched me. this is illegal, and there's no two ways about it. Furthermore, we can turn the conversation away from what happened in the round and more about how this was handled This IS a staff complaint after all. It was handled in a bad way, and the moderator needs to learn from it. I will post suggestions in a second.

right, we can use that logic. All announcements are sent by someone (AI, HoP. Cap, etc.) This one was sent by... nobody? interesting. There is only one announcement sent by nobody, and that is the revolutionary's /Loyalist' announcement (and the admin announcements made from the server command line). You cannot tell me (or anyone) that any HoP or HoS would recognize that as a revolutionary or a loyalist, or even the source.. certainly doesn't indicate breaking or entering, by any degree, and there are no reasons to really jump to domestic terrorism (or any sort of crime) from what was said in there. It's very clearly a jump cut reaction, that was not legal, and for whatever reason is being defended as such?

actually, all you'd have to do is ask the AI.

The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. I want you to read this, and then read what you just said. something should seem off.

Garn, normally you're very amicable in these situation, but in this case, what in the hell? There was no reason to raise to blue, the only reason being the ability to skip Cent com's warrant dispenser (which itself should be a huge nono) there was no randomness to the search, there was no warrant, there was no probable cause, there was no crime committed, there was no reason this should be legal in a million years. I can't be the only one who feels that they're taking crazy pills in feeling that the moderator in question is doing wrong by not intervening

You're going to have to explain more, I'm afraid. This does not say anything about the randomness, nor does it say anything about the sanctioning of the search.

I'm not going to say you aren't right but I am going to say that there was not random aspect, and I'm going to say that the search was sanctioned before the clearance hit blue. This was clear to everyone present.

Right, this is an important point: just because something is not said, does not mean that you get to make something up in its place. I still see nothing here about the rules being any different for any other code, much less how they're different.

BYOND Key: ForAFriend Staff BYOND Key: NURSIEKITTY Game ID: b4J-axJS Reason for complaint: Normally I would go to the player complaint forums to post on this subject, but something told me I should post it here. . In a recent round with this staff member, I was illegally searched. I Ahelped this, as it is the only way to gain a reasonable response, let's be honest, nobody else is gonna do shit when the Head Of Security is calling the shots. I ahelp this. The moderator essentially says "So? they have every right to, there isn't any rule against that". I say "yes there is, There was no warrant obtained, there was no probable cause." after telling this to the moderator, the moderator PM's the HoS for a bit and gets back to me saying the same thing as the first time "hey have every right to, yadda yadda" I reply with "no they don't, what rules are there against this?" moderator takes the low road and says (paraphrased) "I don't have to show you nuffin!" to which I reply: "Do I have to show you the rules then?" I cite the illegal search law: Here . The Moderator responds that "there are different rules on code blue", which amazes me, because that's completely made up, and not supported anywhere on the corporate regulations page. I tell said moderator this. the response "Well I ain't gonna do anything about it" These quotes are all rough, paraphrased versions of what was said. if anyone has the logs for the Ahelp, I highly recommend they get posted publicly. Evidence/logs/etc: log of round ID "b4J-axJS" Additional remarks: It amazes me that a moderator of the server not only cannot see anything wrong with the rules that were broken, not even the fact that they do not know that such rules exist, not only that they continue to defend the player who has broken the rules AFTER said rules were undoubtedly pointed out clearly, but continues to do absolutely nothing when there is an obvious breach of Corprate Regulation! Helllooo?! you're a moderator! You're supposed to moderate the dang game! that means knowing and enforcing the rules, not sitting there and defending every rule that's broken.

call me wonderfully surprised!

Every time there is a rev round where there are not enough players, you inevitably see half of them say in chat >"BULLET DODGED" >"Thank God" and other phrases of the sort. The simple truth that anyone who plays rev / loyalist knows it's like trying to gas light an entire station into believing they have problems that they don't. When there's two of you and 10+ of them, there is very small chance that you can gaslight one of them, let alone an entire team. These are not lost roles however. These Roles just need driven events to go off of. Start the AI with a mild rule change. Tell a head that they have a goal and must push their employees extra hard. Have certain items be missing from the round start ( insulated gloves, steel sheets, stun batons, ethanol, kinetic accelerators), anything to hook the players in and have the roles goal based on actual infractions, and you know, NOT Gaslighting People!

You cannot fool anyone. This simply does not happen.