Frances

Uhhh no. There needs to be risks to combat and infections are an important part. It makes no godamn sense. You don't develop a killing infection in 1-2 hours. Also, there's other risks to combat (Breaking limbs, losing limbs, pain, being killed) but our guns are so weak that it takes 3-4 laser rifle shots to kill when it's easier to just stun the guy and bash his head in with a extinguisher. The purpose of infections was to prevent people from shrugging off injuries without visiting medbay. I'd like to see an overhaul of the injury/healing system, but you gotta admit injuries in SS13 are pretty unrealistic as a whole, so superfast infections aren't a standout offender tbh.

We tried that (and the admins got mad at me for it -_-), but the infection just came back in other body parts some 10 minutes later. Also tried to remove kidneys, which should make the mob immune to toxin damage (at least it used to, idk if it was that or liver to I took out both to be safe), and the infection somehow still kept going.

There's actually a phantom infection bug, which is rare but completely untreatable. I don't think it has anything to do with infection stages, as I saw it happen from minor things we tried to treat quickly. Anyway, there's no way to treat patients with it that I know of. Like, even admin rejuvs don't fix it. So it's pretty much terminal, lmao

Hotdog: term used to refer to the ERT shuttle, as it is hotdog-shaped.

Alright, then two questions: -How does this system distinguish between antags ragequitting and antags leaving because their round is legitimately over? (whether because they got caught or died early) -If this system makes no distinction, how many false positives (antags simply leaving without using cryo or ahelping) would we be encountering, in comparison to legitimate cases of ragequits? Oh, and as a last consideration: -Is this system worth spending the resources to implement? Is this a non-negligible issue? Are there no better solutions available?

Wait, why is it the specific fact that antags don't cryo or ahelp when leaving that's an issue?

But... if you get caught and permabrigged, or die, isn't your job essentially done at this point? If people have a good reason to kill you they're unlikely to clone you afterwards, and if you get permabrigged you might get a chance to escape but could easily consider your antag arc as finished if you wanted. I get that some roleplay can happen after being permabrigged (and killed I guess?) but I don't think it's the crux of good antag roleplay. I don't think we should be forcing antags to stay after they've been permabrigged, and expecting them to stay after they've been killed is kinda unrealistic. The problem is that if you give people any kind of ability to "downvote" antags, it'll be used whenever an antag does something a person simply disagrees with. And since so many people seem to react negatively when their characters are killed for any reason, including valid ones, it'd discourage antags from doing anything to, well, anyone.

Submitting antagonists to the constant pressure of public vote isn't a good idea, in my opinion. Look at admins running events. No matter who runs what event how, a few people will always complain. And this is actually putting off some admins from running events (I don't think it should, and since it's inevitable I think part of running events is just being able to take criticism while remaining detached, but it's something that's inevitable.) Antags currently don't have that pressure to deal with, but I have a strong feeling that if they did, it would stifle most innovation. Currently, admins can deal with cases of bad antagging by talking to them and trying to teach them how to be better, and if nothing works, by handing out antag-bans. What precise purpose would antag voting serve?

Sue essentially sums up what I already thought, although she might not be doing the best job of it. Basically, short sentences are too short to do much with, long sentences are given for crimes it'd be unrealistic to give "alternative" punishments for. This doesn't mean we can't think of ways to improve the communal brig, though. That part of your post puzzles me. And it's not even fully related to the thread, but you have me going like wat. While you're describing the average graytider, a good 50% of arrests (if not more) don't go like that, and if they do you've been one of the biggest proponents of "security has the tools to stop these people so they should simply use them". I wouldn't be surprised if you ran into less than enjoyable experiences, though, because Ana is literally the most confrontational sec officer I have ever seen on Aurora. And I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, if you enjoy the kind of conflict it breeds (some of it is hilarious, including some of the stuff Ana says and the replies she gets from people). But you can't, like, do that as part of a character, and complain OOCly that you're met with IC hostility afterwards.

As long as we have a good moderation staff, this shouldn't be an issue. What really matters in these disputes is how each side's arguments are brought up - as long as everyone remains level-headed, we have nothing to fear (and if people start being too ridiculous, I trust the staff to be able to put an end to it). I think the reaction to somebody displaying curiosity regarding somebody else's culture should be one of acceptance and encouragement. What's the point of making something sacred and scaring everyone away from it? You might protect cultures that way but nobody's ever going to learn about them.

Okay, but just because you've had a bad time with sec doesn't mean everybody's pissed off and unwilling to play with antags until endtimes. Why not let other people have their discussion?

People are just trying to come up with some fun and non-destructive ideas to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. I'm not sure why you want to turn it into a fight of antags vs sec, because that really wasn't the intent of the thread :/ If that's what you think, then why are you even posting?

Well, what do you mean by destroyed? Cultural appropriation feels like such a weasel word to represent various misguided agendas on the internet. Sure, it's an actual problem, but you have to ask yourself, does it/will it really apply here? If I was part of a minority, cultural or otherwise, and saw a person make a genuine effort to represent my minority with good intentions, I'd probably, first of all, well, be happy that someone was taking an interest in my minority with no ill-will (and wanting to roleplay as a person of another culture? Like, come on. I think that's a valid desire.) And if they actually got something wrong about whatever thing they were representing that I knew more about, I'd be glad to correct them, which feels a lot more constructive than throwing a fuss. I believe there's ways to deal with race smartly and sensibly, without making it a minefield.

That's where I wanna reassure people, or at least bring a particular idea to light. Race is literally whatever you make it to be. There's a difference between culture and race. If you want to research a specific culture and roleplay it, that's awesome (and that's actually one of the ways you can use roleplay to gain some super cool life experience), but as far as race is concerned, a black dude is just... a black dude. Same for any other race. If people just want to change their racial background to be different, it's not super complicated. Chances are if you have friends of another race, and never noticed anything particular about them, it's because there isn't anything really worthy of note. Personalities go a long way towards defining an individual, but race really doesn't. So race =/= culture, and, uh, I'm not really sure what's even important to do with that. It's not like any specific cultures are prominent on SS13 unless players choose to make it so (you really don't hear much about religion or ethnic customs on the station in general, so if you want to forgo them it'd probably go unnoticed). Edit: @Killer Dang. I thought this post was just a curious observation. I really don't see what's worth getting our knickers in a twist.

This problem has one main cause: the SS13 community is not very racially diverse either. You mostly see young, white people because players are mostly young, white people, and it's what's most relatable to them. This brings some interesting and amusing consideration: it's fun for people to play as someone of the opposite gender, or of a completely different species, but it seems less fun to play as a black or Indian person when you're white. I have no idea why that is, aside from the supposition that people might prefer to play characters that are conventionally attractive to themselves, and find it easier to play as characters of their own races, or "idealized" races (pretty much white people tbh.) The most obvious situation to that would be to find a way to write this into the lore, though it doesn't work as well considering Biesel is some sort of international colony (I think), and you'd have to retcon it so NanoTrasen had mostly American roots. Something interesting to think about is racial mixing: if people of various ethnic backgrounds came together to colonize new regions of the universe, the new populations would reflect mixed-race identities to a certain degree (and this degree could be pretty big compared to what we've seen historically, since whites finally stopped considering non-whites as subhumans, and now we've got free love and all.) So it's very possible that spacers of the future wouldn't have just one race, but be an amalgam of many races.

Well, antags aren't forced to stick to their characters' skills (dat syndicate spec ops training), so this problem could easily be solved by giving antags maxed stats, or letting them reroll their stats upon being picked as antag. But you don't want to punish people simply for being good at the game I can see a character getting up from a wheelchair to slap antag dick as being a problem, but what about the doctor or cargotech who decides to fight antags and wins against all odds? What should we do with them?

That's honestly a really, really interesting take on it. I think this reflects upon another duality, the one of "HRP is about SS13, but roleplayed out" vs. "HRP is about delivering a completely unique (and more serious) experience". We're closer to the former, as are most other HRP servers, due to the amount of development that is required to add better, fuller features (and also because some people dislike change.) I think that "fun" SS13 RP is a good thing, though, and if we were to completely overhaul the combat to enforce realism (rather than robustness) I'd rather see it on a completely new server.

So you really don't see where I'm coming from, with tone and all? I've probably heard from 4-5 different staffmembers this week that tone doesn't matter and that if we don't agree with what staff are saying tough shit, but fact is, it does matter a lot with how receptive people are. If only because speaking to people this way doesn't do anything good. (And, like, yes, you can yell at people over the internet, but it carries little to no authority. At best it will have literally no effect on the situation, and at worst people won't take you seriously. I get that not everybody will always listen to you, no matter how you say things, but you have tools for that, yelling at them isn't the solution.) Also, can you quote the others things you considered attacks? I still can't find them after reading through the logs.

How do you feel about the current state of forum moderation, and would you change anything to the way forums are moderated? It's a rather small scene with 2-3 mods, so every participant has a big impact. This question isn't trying to imply that someone would go yolo and simply start changing the moderation guidelines, but if you'd like to make a push towards specific guidelines or ideas, what would they be?

I load up my trusty .38 special with some of the spare cheetos lying around the room, and, spinning the barrel of the gun like a true action film cowboy, take aim at the NEET while praying the gods of the dice reward me with a successful hit.

You should definitely be putting this on the wiki, because it's not what our current guidelines on identifying antagonists are saying.

@Aqy I don't have an issue with you reacting to people saying rude things, and trying to stop them. I actually think you were on point with choosing to intervene when you did, but it's the specific phrasing that I think was less than perfect. When somebody made fun of Samantha as a passing remark, you criticized the whole conversation as having no point unless it was taken to the forums (I think you were trying to say that criticism should be posted on the forums? But it sounded like you wanted the whole conversation to stop because of that one thing.) I think it would've been better to say "hey, just don't make fun of other people's characters" or something like that, I don't really get the forum bit (though feel free to explain it, maybe I'm wrong.) As for the rest, I just don't really like the use of an urging tone and caps for emphasis. You could have conveyed the same message in a much gentler way, and I think being gentle would have been a better approach because being aggressive put everyone on the defensive and sorta started the whole argument about "is this conversation offensive" along with Chris. Does that make sense?

It's more of a disappointment because infiltration is only really fun to watch (and only leads interesting results) when people are being a bit careless.

I don't want to go too off-topic, but I felt like replying to that in particular because I disagree. Well, maybe disagree isn't the right word. But as much as any development projects need to go through the headdev, the headdev isn't there to pick out specific ideas they like as much as keep the "crazy" out. Scopes is one of the best devs I've seen, and in my short time interacting with various people who try to make videogames (and run projects in general), you can run into some pretty terrible people who aren't even aware they're being terrible. In comparison, Scopes is organized, level-headed, and has to manage the suggestions of 50+ people along with the help of a rare few coders. (The same really goes for Skull before him.) A lot of suggestions are too large-scale and vague to be implemented (it's really a matter of who wants to spend an insane amount of time coding and fixing all of one big idea, while making sure the community likes it enough), but of the rest of the suggestions, those that are good and easy to implement do make it whenever the manpower to execute them is found. I might be getting my knickers in a twist over nothing, and I know for a fact you didn't mean anything bad through what you said, so disregard me if I'm ranting over nothing, but I think Scopes deserves credit. And I'll just be sad if no one acknowledges it.

I'm not sure if you chose to moderate this thread because you're bored, or like to attempt the impossible. But either way, good luck.