Marlon P.

"The situation of stateless dregs in this document is heavily romanticized in respect to what the actual situation of a stateless person in real life is. The only things mentioned in this document are basically the SCC treating you like every other dreg (dregs cannot be heads of staff, so there are really no promotions to hold someone against, unless it's an intern position but restricting people to internship positions is extremely bad). To be clear, stateless people often cannot access any medical services, go to school, get hired at all (because you are a gigantic liability) and often have troubles with freedom of movement. If stateless dregs get re-added, their condition should be miserable if anything, and you are also going to risk overlap with normal dregs anyway - as they are also considered non-citizens by the Eridanian state. Do remember that it is currently not mechanically possible for dregs to have no citizenship in game, so if anyone has been doing that on the ship, they are intentionally and willingly playing an archetype that is not possible and is not approved by lore." The situation of people in the "Wild West" in most fiction is heavily romanticized in respect to what the actual situation of the american frontier in real life was. The situation of the oppressed in most cyberpunk fiction is heavily romanticized in respect to what the actual situation of the oppressed in real life is. The situation of space travel in most fiction is heavily romanticized in respect to what the actual situation of space travel in real life is. This app romanticizing some element of life isn't inherently problematic -- we are all playing make-believe together and we have to acknowledge the degree of seperation between us and fictional dregs. The situation of stateless people in the Auroraverse 2460's does not have to be the same as stateless people in 2022 america / Europe in the prime reality. It's romanticized and that's a good thing. Characters must not always be suffering abject misery to be written from alternate modes of life. I would very much -1 such a change because it would reintroduce a heavy-handed cliche present across the aurora narrative. I also enjoy the meta level of playing a stateless dreg being "illegal" by lore staff -- stateless people per say As for their unplayability-- since lore is a collective game of make-believe, it can simply be changed to make them playable, even with no touching of mechanics. Who's to say their passports aren't fake?

A great contribution. The dregs are a highlight of the faction and seem to be a major outlet for players so the work on them is going to be a great use for characters. The work itself in OP looks good. Naming the planets is also a good idea. +1

Sorry, only saw the op and your necropost. Forgot all about my replies, lol I agree with my past self, who i must say is incredibly attractive.

Is any more information needed from me for this complaint?

I support the applicantees application.

These conditions are achieved without the current inconsistent and opaque system. People without friend circles deserve a method of proving their ability. Whitelist application rates have decreased. The data doesn't show the rate of accepted apps vs denied. The data also tracks all whitelists. So the actual intake of command players is far lower than the decrease shown in the data.

I agree.

Powerful. What do you want to happent to achieve this goal? Guidelinesfrom the bosses about naming conventions for in-universe products?

I wrote it as the loremaster; its one of mine. It should also be deleted. It's terrible.

What i mean to say is there's, to my knowledge, no wider directives for references, so maintainers and devs make their own guidances - hence the back and forth on the matter.

Unless there is direction from upper management the devs make these decisions based on preferences. There's no right or wrong to it. You also see this mindset lore-side. It's a culture war that flares up every now and then. Do you want to keep the references?

Also to complete my OP with more data: Aurora pulled in 76 players during Saturday's event before returning to normal. Seems like the peak is ~70 players.

The application itself asks several questions about command play and what it means to play command. If someone who has played for 5 days a week vs someone who plays 1 day a week answer the questions similarly, what's the difference? Isn't the trial period meant to be where an aspirant addresses your concerns through playing Command? I did that for a few pages of the archives and found more examples of the appearance of inconsistency from the whitelist management. Denied AI, for activity https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17318-kaedwuff-ai-whitelist-application/#comment-157855 AI, for lack of feedback https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17141-generalcamos-command-application/ Command, for lack of feedback https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17062-armaliterifle-command-whitelist/ Command, for lack of feedback https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17097-risingvaliant-command-wl-application/ AI, for being too new https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17110-trustyasheck-ai-whitelist-application/ Command, for lack of feedback https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17009-sh4rds-command-application/ AI, for lack of activity https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/16921-xdwbxthe2nds-ai-whitelist-application/ Accepted AI, despite lack of feedback https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/16910-cakeisossims-ai-whitelist-application/ AI, despite lack of feedback https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/16854-geeves-ai-whitelist/ AI, limited feedback https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/16597-fyni-is-not-an-ai-but-would-like-to-be From the outside looking in, there is no rhyme or reason to why someone would be rejected for one standard and then another accepted despite the seemingly same standard. While I don't know any of these applicants I know of Geeves; what I imagine the ones that were accepted despite lack of activity were old, established players and "known" actors? This is what I was pointing out earlier. The inconsistency creates uncertainty, and reinforces the barriers between tiers of play for core players and the new players. Filling out the application in which I answer questions about how to play command is not an acceptable minimum standard for entry for me, but it is for another player? A consistent minimum for playtime, a consistent standard applied to the application form, a consistent standard for activity, and consistent application of these standards will reduce the barriers between the tiers of play and the reduction in confusion and inconsistency will encourage more command applications due to the greater perception of fairness and accessibility. Command applications have incorporated roleplay checks, meaning you have to pass both. There is a question that explicitly requires you to be aware of the geopolitical/sociopolitical situation of Biesel and how it impacts your command character. The barriers to entry for Command should be low enough to have replacements waiting in the wings. The standards as they are -- appearing inconsistently applied on top of being an unreasonable show of loyalty -- is insufficient and will see Command activity decrease, thus harming the health of the overall server.

Thank you for your responses. This is something Caelphon does in loredev apps. He poses essentially the same(ish) questions with slight modifications in the applications. This provides an interview format without increasing the requirements. This dynamic prevented is the uncertainty that mentioned, which creates confusion for aspiring applicants. Applicants have no way to judge their own activity. It creates standards that only the individual staffmember is aware of, and it can change even between applicants. How can the merits of a decision be judged if there is no standard to compare the decision to? I've skimmed old ai whitelists and I've seen people who appeared to pass the interviews / thread but whom were rejected for inactivity. How inactive were they? What was the lowest playtime shared among the rejected applicants? If activity is not a requirement, but people are rejected due to inactivity, doesn't that mean that is the most important standard that its judged by? As well, it puts across that not playing enough somehow invalidates their ability to function in the whitelisted role. It creates an uncertain and nebulous requirement for loyalty thru completing dailies (with no transparency on how many dailies) in an otherwise merit based application process.

Thank you for responding and clarifying my generalization in the OP. I will edit it for clarity in a bit. Can these questions be compiled and provided on the application, or asked in posts to follow up? The interview process takes place in two seperate mediums - a forum and discord. In addition, what is the minimum playtime that your ai whitelist team looks for in a player, and can this number be provided to the public in the rules/guide?

Oh i get it. Talk "at" redditors in a way that talks "to" googling ppl. Good idea. Ill bring this into my main argument-- they wont stick around as much with how obtuse and dense the barriers between tiers of play are.

I understand what you're saying better. I did misread you. I used to agree about appealing to reddit. I also recognize googling reddit discussions is slowly replacing googles own algorithmically curated list of advertisements. I used to post there advertising aurora during my tenure as loremaster. I'm sure a coordinated ad campaign of our own would get some attention. Its just that ss13s reddit isn't super aligned with HRP. It focuses on our subgenre of funny stuff. A lot of the lowbrow humor. But its all for naught if people don't apply for our higher tiers of play. So we need to make them more acessible to players. People who dont bother with applying with a face to face interview, essay questions, and hidden and unknowable level of activity, can go invest elsewhere.

Yes. Command WLs have fluxed, but did not have the levels of requirements as now. The numbers show a decline in applications longterm -- again it includes ALL applications archived. As for the rest... i disagree that we need to combat "degeneracy". Let's not use that language, it makes me feel like im reading youtube comments under jordan peterson videos. I also have little idea what reddit says about auroras whitelist process; they're also hardly our target demographic. Addressing the whitelist process is best addressed by reducing the barriers between the tiers of play -- like not having an entire interview process et all. We know there are more players than we get. Post-NBT and event pops prove it imo. This may be reinforced on Saturday if the lore event pulls in high numbers. You are right about pulling in grays and randoms. Thank you for responding.

Sorry for the necro. I stumbled on the old 'antag objectives' thing when looking for something else and the structure of it could easily be adopted for a player ran newspaper. With some modifications. Staff and player editors would have all the buttons currently shown. Players would see just the info on the left. Obviously terms and presentation would have to be changed, as well as where this stuff shows up. Rerouting these former antag objectives into the newscasters would be pretty good. Also I wrote this one. The content is silly - still funny - and I'm more looking at the structure around it all.

Suggestion withdrawn.

I strongly agree with Monty. The warfare tropes of aurora have become clichés. Implementing the suggested change will be a beneficial change.

Foundation is what came before that you're building on now. The retcon you specifically point to is something done by newlore, so it's not foundational. Pointing to a retcon your generation has done to say why oldlore is inconsistent is confusing. I played the game as a ghost for reasons i said. You are saying how i have been playing is invalid. I'm not complaining about cybs, im complaining about your use of the logs to demean my part of the conversation. Cybs is a player on the same level as me and can't go logscraping. I wasn't lying. Being a ghost is a way to play the game. I said why i have been playing this way. Edit: i am also confident quite a few staff don't play very much, and they can do more than I can with my comments on server lore and policy -- they enforce server lore and policy. It's condescending to use admin perms to belittle my playtime without allowing a player the same tools to see the staffmembers own playtime. If staff shouldn't have to share playtime logs with the entie public to justify their opinions or policy decisions, i should not have to in order to have an opinion on something. That's a big crux imo to show the strikes impropriety. And thank you for acknowledging your language was inappropriate. I'm glad you're not going to do that anymore. You say this stuff all the time. It probably would have been different since i agree that it was unfair and badly done and my criticism of the process changed how i did future events. It's how you speak in condescending ways, not what you say. Which is part of why it is inconsistent to strike me, as you engaged in behavior that made me feel looked down on.

Thank you for replying. How you say the event had a bias in favor of pro-synth is a completely justifiable thing to say and I agree with. I didn't take offense to it being criticized, but how you were criticizing it. If I point to your serial killer arc, and said it was "bullshit" specifically, would that be condescending towards you? I think that it would be, which would be a violation of rule 2. That is why I feel you using it on something I did was an equal violation of rule 2. We both agree that things can be improved. I also point out that things written by current devs are inconsistent and confusing. There is a difference in design philosophies and both of them have flaws. I try to not use abrasive language to describe my thoughts on it. You have - using 'bullshit' etc. It is condescending. When talk about forum stuff not being reflected on ship, I acknowledge that there are efforts by the loredevs to have it be reflected. However, as I said, the level of intensity put forth by the canon on the forums is different from the intensity of the canon on the ship. You yourself have pointed out how when I experimented with reflecting the economy on-ship, through price hikes that were then dropped on everything but cigarettes to show price gouging, you said it was not good. That is an example of me using the same argument in a situation where it is now your side doing something. I am saying the methods by which the intensity of the forum lore is not reflected in the intensity of the lore on-station and then on-ship. This does not sound consistent. You posted it to retort a statement I made. You posted my logs to prove me wrong in a conversation. I don't have this ability to counter your argument. It shows your superiority over me in the conversation, because I have no way to pull up your logs as far as I am aware. It is improper/condescending use of admin powers that shows hypocrisy in the strike. I did say that observing is equal to playing; for the purpose of observing lore effects on the ship, it is just as valid because I am seeing the entire crew whizz past me in the chat bar. That is what I am looking at. I was saying that the vibe of the crew is one not super duper concerned with the earth-shattering events hitting our holoscreens every once in awhile ic'ly, as I see it from limited ghost observations. You were wrong when you said I do not play, unless being a ghost is not playing. In which case I don't play. That doesn't make my observations any more wrong. Pointing it out is only used to belittle my point of view. Pointing out that my playing less than an invisible goalpost makes my points less valid is very much condescending because it gives people who play more a superiority over me. The only rebuttal I can give is to play rounds more. Would you agree with everything I had said in that conversation if I played more rounds than you? If not, why post the logs? To show the person I was talking to was superior to me in the conversation. I have personally never seen playtime logs posted in a public chat to prove someone 'wrong' in a conversation. How often is that done? How you feel about something is a preference. How I and you feel about something is a preference. If you think something I wrote was bullshit, and I don't think it was bullshit, who is right? You? Why? I point it out because a lot of comments from your lore department are sweeping generalizations that is an opinion presented as a fact. You do this too, which is why the strike is inconsistent. I don't know how to prove whether or not I missed a message. I acknowledged I beefed it in the convo when you pointed it out. I apologize for misunderstanding you.

BYOND Key: MarlonPhoenix Staff BYOND Key:Alberyk Game ID: (Alberyk#7868 145220807424081920). Case ID: [146] Reason for complaint: The strike is improper. He was engaged in behavior he gave a strike over. Evidence/logs/etc: He calls an old event bullshit, which is demeaning language. Other current loredevs on roster call my old work "shit", "bad", etc. If I used this language to describe current lore work from lore developers -- people still around to defend themselves -- I would be punished. This makes the application of the strike improper because it is applying different standards to different groups of players and staff unless the current staff members making statements that are similar in the strikes' justification -- being condescending -- are also striked. Previous remarks are dismissive towards the tone and direction of the previous lore team which do not align with the current tone and direction. This following quote serves to show the pattern where he gives his opinion and I point out it's a matter of different design philosophies. Being mostly an observer in-round and reading the news articles on the forum, I've been interested in seeing these things from the perspective of a new player, due to me being away from the server for awhile due to a targeted harassment campaign chasing me out. I compare it to the divide between a DM in a TTRPG who has all lore knowledge vs being a player who is in the dark except for what the DM explicitly says. Reading the news articles and reading the general chatter of the radio and conversations on the ship. In the following conversation I'm talking out what I've been seeing and how I feel about it. This is a pretty casual project on my end and it ended with me making suggestions in the suggestion subforum to improve things for people who are not one of the core 'Aurora mains' -- people who can play frequently and who participate in most lore events and are also active in the discord. Alberyk joins the conversation and says I am being untrue, which I read as saying I am lying. It is demeaning to say this to me, and I could not say this in turn to others without being punished. There is also a point where I am describing how I handled old news articles as a philosophy, and then leading into why I disagree with it. After this it leads into the used argument that since I have not played in-rounds, just observing so I can watch the ship's crew doing stuff and keeping myself detached so I can see how keeping up with the server's lore on-forum vs lore on-ship can be done, how easily, etc. He used his administrative powers to show my play-time when another player was asking me about it. This is a very old trope in aurora, to belittle someone's remarks on the server based on their playtime. I even talk about how I have a limited window and it's just what I see. Maybe I did not want to share my playtime with the public? Does the entire server need to see my playtime? What is the reason to post it? It seems to just be a way to show that I should not be taken seriously and that what I am saying is invalid. This behavior is inconsistent and falls under the strike he gave me, due to it being condescending. I am still trying to be involved in this community and this behavior towards me is demeaning. Additional remarks: Using administrative powers to win an argument by belittling me and using this language towards my past work, by calling it bullshit, etc, and then giving me a strike for being condescending towards him is inconsistent and improper. It sets the situation wherein a head administrator and players who play "enough" rounds can use language that I cannot use due to not playing enough, and they are able to use their administrative tools to get a one-up on me in a conversation by sharing information a regular player does not have access to. Even if I had logged in as a job every day for the entire year, he would still have the same responses to my arguments, the inclusion of my playtime is only misused in order to be condescending towards me. This complaint is not about the merits of my arguments about articles, or the merits of design philosophies past or present. It is about the inconsistent use the strike and the misuse of administrative tools to manipulate a power imbalance between his powers as staff vs mine. In the logs there were multiple conversations going on at once and it's hard to tell who is replying to what when. I tried to include just the immediately relevant logs as I have seen. Timestamps are included. Conversations take place mostly in the lore channel of the main aurora discord.

When you play the game, how relevant do you feel the articles being posted have been to your playstyle? How much do you engage with them? I pop on to observe rounds and see conversations more reliably than just being a gardener or something, and even then that's a very small sample size. How invasive do events of the narrative get for your character? How has your daily round been affected by events? Do you feel like you don't involve yourself in what goes on in the galaxy? Do you want to? Lore writers know everything going on and it's like asking the DM if he's involved in his homebrew setting's lore so you're forbidding to post.... vanilla players only.....................