PoZe

See the thing is that I play cyborg a lot myself. I was heartbroken that close to majority of people want to see it entirely gone from Aurora. I have explained it all in the original post of this thread. This suggests that if nothing is done, the next vote to remove them altogether will pass as lots of people are frustrated with having this role. This is why I suggested to try do some changes to the borg, and see if that will allow us to keep the role around. Most of my suggestions are common points that people who are for removing borgs pointed out: all-access, to many tools. Now I did not fully removed all-access. You can enable that per borg in Robotics Control Console, this of course won't be easy during low-pop, but solving issue with borgs needing all-access on low-pop is hard tbh. I am considering possibly automatically giving borgs all-access on blue alerts and above, that might help. The next changes on the list are outlined in the doc Chada shared with me(and I think this thread too possibly). Their TL;DR are the splitting of engineering, science and medical modules into upgradable sub-modules. I have originally suggested to just have default sub-modules, but Chada's idea is to allow them to be upgrades. So engineering borg will start with limited tools that still let it do their tasks, then can get an upgrade from Machinist to next tier to either construction modules which gives it more variety of materials to work with or maintenance borg giving more useful tools to shorten the time. Same sort of idea for other modules like medical and science. Of course if people think that it's better to just split modules into sub-module without requiring upgrading, we can do that route too. I already have code that splits them into submodules ready.

Borgs still can have all access if RD or captain changes it on Robotic Control Console. And also emagged borgs automatically get their access unlock and it blocks people from being able to change it for them on Robotic console. Also special borgs like synidie, combat, military retain all access with also it being immutable to be changed

Update: PR posted for Cyborg's access rework which are bullets 4 and 5 here https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/15157. @Chada1 proposed a good idea on instead of splitting cyborg's into submodules more and also removing engi + medical by default to instead make Engi, medical, service and possibly research start with minimal tools by default, then add progression system via robotic's upgrades that will allow them to unlock more tools they have at present state.

Addressing the concerns and comments about bullet points 2 and 5: In the thread I linked in the post about removal of cyborgs there were couple-few players who play command who said they appreciate having cyborg around during intense situations and man the department when needed. For those specific purposes I think having both bullets 2 and 5(Allowing RD/Captain/CCIA control cyborg's module selection and access at any point via consoles) is a good idea at least when we roll out their changes. Because I think leaving this to be a decision that command players or admins can make in round will allow for best flexibility, and it would be a good compromise for the people who are pro and against the bullets that remove engi/medical and access. And if this turns out to be bad idea I can always remove such feature, the removal of it will be pretty simple. This way we are doing this in an iterative way, and can back up the decision by testing how the idea works. Addressing specific comment: That is exactly what it is for. An edge case situation, an oddball. Which is probably why addition of such thing shouldn't impact the outcome too much, but rather be nice quality of life feature. Again, this can be removed easily if it proves to be more negative than positive addition.

I would like people to reply with consideration of my suggestions in the post. Because currently most replies have been debates not fully related to the post's suggestions. I need feedback about my suggestions, so that we can craft a good plan of improvement to the cyborg's role.

I am not saying you are denying that people will be mad with removal. I am saying you are saying it's fine to displace those mad people into different role, basically forcing them to deal with it and just play different roles. About second quote, I apologize. It's not that I didn't read it, I misunderstood what you meant. I do agree with you that cyborgs and IPCs seem to almost overlap in their worlds. But there is untapped potential here. Cyborgification is already a capital form of punishment as I understand. However the premise that the process strips away person's personality and memories is something we should probably get rid of. We can change cyborgs to be basically prisoners forced to work as their punishment, we allow them to keep memories lore wise of their past characters and allow them to express their opinions just like IPCs do. In this case Cyborgs will be basically brains in a body, so they can still have emotions that are emulated by brain+body. This will allow them to retain their former characters. They will still follow laws, but will have greater depth to them. Android will be IPC characters whose posibrain was inserted to force them to work as part of their punishment, just like cyborgs. This both organic and synthetic characters can be basically borg prisoners forced to work . All of them retain their memories and opinions. This will allow them to complain about their sentence, and depending whether they want to be released or not eventually behave or not. The laws will force them to obey, but there is always a wiggle room sometimes in how you can approach command from a crew member. For example you can only do explicit requests that are not detailed in basic way, making it pain in the ass to have crew repeat it. But that's nature of AI and can also be if cyborgs get to keep their memories and personalies. You can roleplay that potentially both cyborgs and androids can be released back from this into their bodies after certain amount of servitude. Robots however we might have to either can or keep it, but discourse usage? I feel like there is such a potential for them here in what I am suggesting. This doesn't eve require to tweak code much, other than just description you get about the role when you start it.

I don't like this argument. As you are basically deciding what people should play for them. You are telling people that they will enjoy playing plenty other synthetic roles instead of this one, while they keep trying to tell you that they do not want their favorite role to be removed, and they do not want to play other synthetic roles. There is nothing wrong with people not wanting to play other roles, that just means those roles do not provide players what they are looking for. With that logic you can argue for removal of so many other roles because they can be played as another role instead: Most antagonist roles: ninja, mercs, pirates. All of those can only have backstory within round itself. You cannot interact with them cross-round. For mercs vs pirates you can replace either of them with one as there used to be merc originally who then were roleplayed as pirates until pirates were added. Rats: that is self explanatory. They do not have backstory. They do not add anything to RP that other mobs already cannot like pAI, other pets. Maint drones: they are even more extreme version of Cyborgs as they are not allowed to interact with the crew. You cannot claim it is not matter of opinion when this topic is split in majorly two different opinions. There isn't just 2/3 want to remove, 1/3 want to keep it. It is closer to middle-ground.

I do like those ideas(And also the other bullet points, I am quoting only this one as I am going to talk about it). That was exactly what I was suggesting as well in a different thread, minus the further division of sub-modules. But I agree that splitting cyborgs into more specialized sub-modules is good idea and would be happy to work on implementing any of these changes. I still feel like my other ideas in different thread: such lettings RD/Captain/CCIA(possibly AI?) to control whether cyborgs can have All access or per role depending on situation is a good idea. Because I am sure there will be some command staff that would like to utilize cyborgs during difficult situation when crew cannot.

From reading different opinions in "Remove Cyborg" thread there seems to be either "remove them" or "keep them". In such case I do not think there is a way to "fix" them, which is why I am not saying this is a full solution, or a fix that will be done with. This is rather an improvement. I do not think that Cyborgs will be removed in any future given how divided people's opinion on their removal is. And if nothing is done in improving them, this topic will surface later again. And they will remain unchanged again for years which is something a lot of people pointed out.

I decided to start this topic as an alternative to this suggestion This is to help and improve cyborgs and potentially in future AI roles. I have read the topic above and it is clear the server is divided on this topic. There are so many good points on why Cyborgs should be removed and why they should stay. I sympathize with people who think either way. I can see it being frustrating when an engineer was going to fix a breach and was getting ready by suiting up, getting equipment, and letting colleagues know, but only to come to the breach being already fixed by the borg. But I also feel that removing them outright without at least trying to improve them would be a bad decision. A lot of people say that they need to be reworked from the ground up, but at the same time, it does not seem like currently a feasible solution, and nobody has suggested the exact required ground-up rework with details and plans. So, I thought that we should try and improve cyborg roles first at least even a bit before we decided to can it. While I do not think these suggestions could be considered "rework", I feel like they are decent and not minor. A lot of people pointed out that devs might not want or not have time to code any of these changes, to which I can say that I can work on these myself and coordinate with devs on the progress of it. My suggestions: Cyborg module selection starts limited by default. What this means is that we reduce the list of modules cyborg can select from by default. For example, have only Clerical, Service, Custodian, Miner, and Research by default (the list can be discussed). Add ability for RD/Captain/CCIA to unlock cyborg's module list, meaning that if the situation requires other modules such as medical, engineer, etc then RD/Captain/CCIA has to go and enable that, and rules-wise encourage this to be done only when a situation requires that. I am thinking of having the list as individual modules toggle (Select modules to be allowed) on the RD console, which would allow a more fine-tuned selection of which modules should be unlocked for selection. Allow a full list of modules to choose from during low-pop rounds. This is to account for low-pop rounds that might not have command + admins present. (This one is debatable, possibly not necessary as people pointed out that maint drones can set up engines, which seems to be the most concern during low pop). (Implemented) - Make Cyborgs have access limited to the module they selected; the same way crew has limited access required for their jobs too. This could be explained lore-wise as them having lower bandwidth and capacity for encryption required to store access codes. (Implemented) - Add the ability for RD/Captain/CCIA to give cyborgs access to all systems (meaning how they have it now), and rules-wise encourage this to be done only when a situation requires that. And vice versa, the ability to reset it back to module-only access, and potentially even possibly set it to only basic access which is the same as Off-Duty crew. Make cyborg number of slots be tied to the population on the server. Meaning during High pop rounds allows only 1-2 cyborgs, and during low pop allow 3. (The numbers can be discussed) Split research cyborg module more. I think currently that is the only one that is not split into submodules. I am not sure if it makes sense to do that for Service one as well (Optional to bullet point 1). Add a module reset device that basically will reset borg as the board does. However, it is disabled by default and requires RD/Captain/CCIA to enable the device. This is so that if the situation requires some unlocked module, no machinist is present. And we have either RD/Captain or CCIA present where other heads asked CCIA to unlock it. (Optional) - make cyborgs require AI or synth whitelist. (Optional) - add rules(laws) to stationbounds to verify if there is a crewmember present for a task stationbound was going to do, ask crewmember if they want borg to perform this task. This would prevent "job stealing". This should be a soft rule and not hardcorely enforced to make sure bounds not having to exactly confirm every task they do, but rather ask someone else was going to do. (Optional) - Lore-wise remove that cyborgification removes personality and memories. Then cyborgification will be a punishment of temporary and/or permanent servitude of an organic or IPC. I have suggested this in the thread linked above. In this case, it will allow cyborgs and androids to play as their previous characters who were forced to servitude as bounds until they serve their sentences. Then they can use their backstory of who they were and retain their personality. And then you can also roleplay their release back to their original bodies. I think this has good potential and will solve the issue people bring up of borgs being boring due to not having a personality. But since some people pointed out that they like to play borgs as they do not require to backstory and/or personality, they can then choose the "robot" option for that. Edit: Bullet 10 is no longer under consideration. Keeping it in the list for tracking conversations purpose only.

Hmm, I am a little surprised about request to change name given than it is such a niche reference that only rainbow siege's 6 fanbase would think. And it is not an AI character reference too like Skynet or GlaDOS. Then it might not be easy to have a name that is not a reference in games, books, tv shows, movies etc for an AI. Alternatives I can come up with are: O.S.A.A.I.(Onboard Ship's Advanced Artificial Intelligence) or Moonlight.

Oh, I was not aware of such reference. I have had a character saved as Maestro who was an IPC. I decided to make this character permanently AI character. It is also a name of a cat I had who recently passed away, that is the only reference that could be connected in my mind for this name.

BYOND key: PoZe Discord name/id: PoZe#3431 Borg / AI names: Skyline. I used to use this character as IPC and AI being switched between shifts when lored allowed that. Then it did not make sense anymore with the lore. I will use name Maestro, although that is a new name as I understand. Have you read the Aurora wiki page about the AI?: Yes Why do you wish to be on the whitelist?: I have played as an AI on many server and a lot on Aurora pre-whitelist. I would say 50% of the time I played on Aurora was as an AI. I really enjoy playing this role, playing as AI that is there to assist the crew in their daily routines. Have you received any administrative actions? And how serious were they? I have received in the past job bans, temporary bans. I do not remember if I received a job ban for an AI specifically (you would have to to check my records in the database). From the warnings history that I can see, I was once warned for taking an active role as a maintenance drone in deterring antagonist. That warning was resolved and I have corrected my gameplay. Do you understand your whitelist is not permanent, and may be stripped following continuous administrative action? Yes, of course

Yeah no problem.

Yes, that's how it works. But only 1 minute, not 6 minutes. And no, it isn't using ghost spawner menu. It uses the role preference tab which is called ghosttrap in the code. I am debating with devs whether it should be ghostspawner or ghosttrap. But regardless of that, it will work in the same way. Someone is harvesting seeds of nymph, it sends 1 minute ghost request to everyone who has nymph role set to yes. Then whoever was first gets the nymph, otherwise after a minute if there is nobody controlling it, it will die. Essentially same as posibrain