Decepter

From what I've seen of Ayishah Al-Ghazzawi, LforLouise is a competent role-player! I'd be interested in seeing what they could do in the command area. +1

Been a while since we've RPed but I remember all our interactions being fantastic! +1

Fyni is the goodest of good eggs, all her characters are great (feel real) and always fun to RP with! When I see Elizabeth Joyce in rounds she's a composed believable captain, communicating with the other members of command and crew effectively. 10/10 would mop the bridge floor again. +1

From what I've seen of Claudia so far, I'd say Maroon is a good egg +1

Vrow is a good egg, with fantastic RP and wonderfully thought out characters. +1

I can see the point that this thread is trying to make, but I think the D and D comparison is a little off. Let me explain. If you're in a D and D game where the DM says "And then the bad man teleports behind you while he's invisible and kills you while you're getting changed, unlucky" Chances are you're not going to be in that D and D game for much longer, because no one would want to play in a game where their characters have no agency, and are merely play things to be at the whims of what ever power fantasy the DM is having (which is where all the D and D horror stories on the internet come from). Enabling such things will drive down player population even if we currently enjoy highs. Now I know that this might not be your point, but it is part of the implication from 'they just die and that's that'. Most people who play Aurora do so to have character arcs which they can be invested in; making meaningful connections with other characters, interacting with the world and lore, the list goes on. Antags are intended to enhance the experience of everyone on the server; adding that little bit of spice into a round so that the chair RPers [like myself] aren't the only people who play. Like in the previously mentioned statement being an antagonist doesn't mean you should just have free reign to engage in a power fantasy, stealing the 'surrendered' player agency and using them as mere tools to tell your story. And that's assuming you're even trying to tell a story in the first place, which I find very lacking all too often. I do think that every antagonist should have some sort of character motivation at the root of their agenda: What are your goals? I'll do you one better! WHY ARE YOUR GOALS? What you do has to strongly be backed by why you're doing it. If you're going to murder someone, you better have a bloody good reason for it because news flash, murdering people will get a massive target placed on your head in most societies, something that even the sickest of psychopaths' are aware of, even if it's for their own self preservation they would take such things into account. We have a believable character rule in place, and I don't think this rule should have an exception for antagonist characters. I understand that adds a heavy burden of responsibility to any antagonist player, but to use your own comparison in dungeons and dragons that responsibility falls upon the DMs shoulders. The very very best GMs are normally beating the drum of their players secretly as their biggest fan, hoping and praying they overcome the challenge the DM has set before them and never ever EVER have their player's characters die for no reason; there is always a setup. It's not unreasonable to pin the same expectations on the Antagonist player in exchange for part of our character's agency, yes you can play with our character's lives; but no you're not beyond reproach. To summerise; I think having a suitable [believable] goal and motivation for having said goal[s]; which should even extend past the next hour [Yep, part of the immersion is that the universe doesn't just stop after 2 hours 20 minutes] is a good thing for any character [antagonist or otherwise] to have. There is no point in murdering the captain because you didn't like his shoes if it ruins your characters entire existence. If you are willing to ruin your entire existence for something have it be part of the angle! Tell us/ show us why! [Chair Rpers like myself love that kind of thing] As an example the antagonist at the breaking point who's got a deep motivation pushing them forward is an antagonist people will want to engage with through dialog or other means. TLDR: If you want the statement: 'you are not in charge of what ultimately happens to your character' to be true, you must accept the responsibility that comes with that, if you're taking control of what happens to other peoples characters.

I've known Fyni for a long time, we used to play together on other servers. Fyni a good egg and will cause no trouble as AI I am sure, I'd give my personal recommendation! +1

Grey is a great HOP! Been in round a few times, loved it every time +1 Marorr Azuwa is confident, cool does his job well each time and a believable professional.

I've RPed with Eric she seems like a good egg; plenty of interaction and I'm happy to give my +1 to at least give her a chance in a command role!

Having been on a place where LOOC usage was policed heavily, it felt dumb there and adds extra work for admins for things as minor as the occasional OOC comment for a little laugh - it used to happen a lot on the server that must not be named, and honestly felt like an excuse for mods and admins to bwoink people for literally nothing. There just isn't a huge need to police it, If someone is abusing it to post a ridiculous amount you can always mute it. You don't have to tape up other peoples mouths because you can't stand them having a chat. The only thing that I think that should be against the rules, is your third example where someone moans about someone else's gameplay/roleplay and kind of already is against the 'don't be a dick rule' LOOC or not. Does it get in the way of roleplay sometimes? Eh, I tend to find that if you start talking ICly again; you can pull everyone back into the room, it's never been an issue for me. People are always going to want to say things like 'this reminds me of this' and most of the time when that happens all of the LOOC interactions are quite positive as people have a little wholesome moment where they remember a previous round or something they've all experienced.

Nope is a great role player. +1

Don't worry it was a joke

I like Cyrus, he seems like a nice character and a good HOP. Except for when he left me and all my friends to die on a cult round. +1

Okay... So it's a plurality voting system. If the Population (I believe this is what the claimed problem is) didn't want extended during the 'dead hour', they'd not vote for it.... Why take away the choice? If you don't want chain extended rounds Vote against them. Rigging the system so some of the player base (who like to play extended during low pop) can't have more than one extended round, when they're the ones who are actually playing is not good. TL:DR If secret gets outvoted, that's because a plurality of players wanted to play something else; taking away that option is not going to help population, you'll only alienate the plurality.

Mel is a great community member and she'd be great as a mod ^-^ +1