Frances

I can agree on the simple basis of the name. I don't mind satire, even of touchy subjects, when it's well-executed (which might be the unpopular opinion here). But naming your group ISIS is just really blatant and in-your-face. I don't even particularly care, but other people will, and then, yeah. Like I 100% wouldn't mind having a group that /parodies/ ISIS, but as far as political correctness is concerned here, it should at least be named something else.

Yeah, I think you're completely missing the point. You're only supposed to act like a cunt if you can actually refute the other person's cunty argument. (And in a perfect world everybody laughs and we go home, but sadly people have to remain salty here). Anyway, I'm calling you out on your consistency, and instead of trying to explain what exactly you were trying to say you posted a good five paragraphs of random stuff about me simply because I made a joke that you might do drugs before posting. (And I can disprove essentially all of what you said - including some things I'm pretty sure I already had to explain to you - but yeah, not the place or the time.) Like, this is honestly a big shame. You post a lot and share a lot of opinions, and I know a lot of people would like to have mature and level conversations with you due to that, but it seems to be a real struggle to make that happen. Hey, I really don't want to be your enemy. I'm not looking for trouble with anyone. But I'm not taking kid gloves just to talk to you, and if you can't handle it and resist the urge to insult me with whatever personal character attacks you can think up on the spot, so be it. I'd say to toughen up a little cause it's the internet, and, yeah. We'll all live.

You're basically saying that people doing things that would get them into trouble is immersion-breaking because they won't get in trouble and nothing is canon. (It's debatable whether a NT captain interrogating a terrorist through torture would get in trouble, but let's run with it. There was a part where people got mad at each other and had a shootout, anyway.) You also seem to... be against antags in general? Which, I don't wanna be mean, but that pretty much negates any criticism you could bring to this because antags are a valid part of the game atm and we're not 24/7 extended. I'm even more confused as to what you want to argue. Like, yeah, people's actions as a response to antagonists are obviously gonna be non-canon (since that nuke or ling round isn't canon either), but it's not really being utilized as a free pass to do ridiculous, character-breaking things. And even if someone breaks character in a non-canon situation to do something cool, so what? This isn't a feeble teenage intern suddenly turning into some CQC boss to robust the nuke ops. It's an antag, they cut off someone's head (which is already pretty immersion-breaking as far as 24/7-extended canon is concerned), and now they're being tortured by a captain who's just seen enough. I don't understand how this can harm you if you're fine with the concept of antags in general. And if you're not, the best choice is to stick to extended rounds.

I'm actually really curious to hear where you're going with this. What is the purpose of these rules? What do you believe upholding them here achieves? (Also, what constitutes self-antagging, in your opinion?)

I think you're missing the point - the actions TechnoKat is describing are completely separate from the events depicted here. The "lowest of crimes" are random minor crimes people supposedly would get arrested for, not the torture we're reviewing. I do think torture can have its place; NanoTrasen has often been played off as a shady corporation, and while torturing random assistants for minor crimes doesn't seem very fitting, I really wouldn't mind if certain HoSes or captains opted for "enhanced interrogation" techniques when serious antags are involved.

You're just not going to be able to see one without the other. Relationships are fostered in extended, but they're made during antag rounds. I've been on extended-only servers, and idk how they do it. Unless your character is looking for "drama", you just won't get anything done.

I'm fairly sure the CSI just lost their personal morgue, not the right to do autopsies at all.

Yeah, I don't really care about IPC/borg/Diona age, as they can offset the numbers greatly while being a complete crapshoot and mostly irrelevant themselves. (Like, people will just play these characters with extremely varied ages, and surveying all these ages won't really tell us much.)

Gave you an "other". And no problem, keep em coming! Better to fix all these now while the survey doesn't have a lot of replies yet.

Just pick other, clearer than having a character counting for two ethnicities at once

Following on SierraKomodo's initiative in this thread, I decided to create a longer, much more detailed survey for characters. It has roughly 30 questions, ranging from religion, language, place of residence and opinion of NanoTrasen to silly things such as sexual preferences in other species, syndicate affiliation, and D&D moral alignments. There should be no superfluous questions, though most questions are optional. Basically, if you want to help give us a detailed portrayal of the station's various characters, head over to the following link and complete the survey: Survey link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vWBcXVAlq_TCXbydDqTeq8XgH2YgYb7pLAZsy6CoFuA/viewform?usp=send_form Responses: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vWBcXVAlq_TCXbydDqTeq8XgH2YgYb7pLAZsy6CoFuA/viewanalytics?usp=form_confirm

You probably want to write new rules, in this case, or release some kind of official stance. It's something I think people would be better off learning all at once, and having explained clearly, than by discovering it through complaint thread-after-complaint thread. (Also no matter how you spin the above incident, I'm pretty sure we can't make without the fact that somebody managed to slip a mention of dogfucking into their medical records, that it caused some kind of incident, and that OOC had a conversation about dogfucking after the fact.)

"I was a medbay doctor, minding my own business. Someone says they want to donate blood in the beginning of the round, okay I guess. Person gets to medbay, typical moeblob female character, stutters a bit. This is just HRP routine, I think nothing of it. I examine her with my HUD to see her blood type and -- ...Find out her medical record is a list of fetishes, with bestiality and BDSM on top of said list. The subsequent confrontation about the affair ended with every Unathi and Tajaran on the station forming a lynch mob against me. The round was still fun, mind you. It ended up with an ERT being sent to restrain the angry animal people, they were all hauled to the shuttle in cuffs. Then, someone started playing devil's advocate for bestiality in OOC because some people were actually OOCly salty that my character had ICly condemned bestiality. Aurora is a magical place." -Ebincluwne, on a /r/ss13 thread about lynch mobs Like, okay, yeah... is this the kind of playstyle you're looking to protect? Should we defend the absolute garbage of HRP? And yeah, I might surprise some of you by calling a group of players or a playstyle garbage, but, that's... literally what it is, pretty much. Thirteen-year-old furry fetishists, sparkledog-inspired mary sue creators, strange, basement-dwelling men who only roleplay teenage girls with long dyed hair and japanese names, people who do nothing but engage in light disney-PG13-sex roleplay touching each other in maintenance tunnels, and so on. Hell, they're at least prominent to a point, because we've even got a widely coined acronym to describe a specific group of them, "Suicidal Space Lesbians" (of which I've definitely witnessed quite a few). And sure, I might not actually play on Aurora quite that much anymore, but these kind of people have always been around, and I'm pretty sure they'll always be around, especially since I can mention we've got our share of recent stories and threads reporting on their existence (or on the incomprehensible need that some people have to whiteknight them). You can go with the politically-correct route, and turn Aurora into a hugbox. And sure, these people are gonna be happy, and Aurora won't be "cool" anymore, and it's still going to be a HRP server though a different brand of it, a brand that some people will hate and that other people will be very happy to have (but a brand I think already exists in a lot of places, while the slightly cooler and slightly more judgemental kind doesn't really seem to exist in HRP anymore). And I guess I'll be a little disappointed to see that happen but whatever. So, my question is, do you want to defend these players? If so, why? And to which extent?

The reason why you're not required is because a lot of posts can be deleted for very asinine reasons. When a group of posts from multiple users gets deleted, a courtesy "cool off guys, these messages were deleted because of X and X" is appreciated. Otherwise, you're not really doing a very good job. What would also be cool would be to go the extra mile and work with the people whose posts you're deleting to explain to them how they could reformulate their posts in a manner you find acceptable. Otherwise, it's very discouraging for some people that in the end may be well-intended.

The forum rules were written very loosely, in part to specifically allow that type of goon/4chan debating. Of course, staff can decide to be more severe, but the only relevant rule here is "don't be a dick", which is an extremely vague guideline. Also, let's not forget rules are just the means to an end, not the end themselves.

While Cresc' post was said in a non-nice way and was more likely to lead to people rabidly defending themselves than facing criticism, I personally feel like deleting users' posts just because they're sassy isn't the direction I want to see this community going. It's definitely part of a specific managerial school of thought, but I'd like people to consider why exactly certain communities don't allow these kind of posts. As for Xander (and to some association Jakers, can't speak for the two other forum mods as I never saw them post), I'm definitely under the impression that they like to see the forums being run a certain way (mostly as what I've described above). You guys should be lenient with them because they're new to the job, but do consider why they've been chosen and what they've set out to do as well. (Also, I'm 95% certain that the reason why forum mods were made in the first place is because none of our current admins want to deal with drama on the forums - and potentially become hated as a result. That's a random thought and isn't meant to imply admins do a bad or good job on the forums, so take it as you will. My personal opinion, however, is that admins should be able to man up, dive into issues, and face ensuing criticism. But maybe they're all too busy.)

This ain't just a videogame, though, this is an online community. Easier to get upset, easier to encounter drama. Anyway, I understand the sentiment, personally. Back when I was headmin, things weren't particularly stressful (mostly because my staff was so nice), but there was a lot to do, certain delicate situations to deal with, and a lot of pressure to get everything done and to do it right. Nevertheless, I really thrived on being able to manage the community. So I get that people can be in certain high-stress situations and do just fine - and even enjoy it.

You're describing the riot shield. That's got little relevance to the esword, though. Why not remove projectile block from it and let it block melee?

A solution to objectives not being engaging for players is to change them. Make "fire [species] because we feel like it" to "a [species] warship has attacked nanotrasen assets, detain all [species] until the matter can be cleared". For the thing about putting women in jail or firing them idk about that, I feel like that objective is silly beyond hope.

Delta, aren't trial periods used to verify these sort of things?

All I'm saying is it's not unnatural to feel uncomfortable working with certain people if you've had/are having personal issues with them. It might simply be the case of two people preferring not to remain too near each other, lest unpleasant situations arise. This doesn't make either of them unqualified to be mods by default. As for the issue of one dealing with the other on a staff-to-player basis, I would assume both would easily be capable of handing off potential cases involving the other to different staff. Both parties here could and should speak about this to leading server staff (preferably in a confidential manner, probably). I do hope they're contacted about this and given a chance to explain themselves, rather than have their applications brushed off because of the issue.

Valid concern, but keep in mind having to work with someone is different than simply seeing them on a server you mod (yes, even if you might encounter them every day). It'd be a lie to say that anybody on Aurora staff doesn't have players they dislike for personal reasons, but that hasn't prevented most of them from remaining impartial when needed.

i always thought skrells were just named through wild keyboard smashing

Oh, uh, whoops. I didn't mean to ask what was the point of your thread. I was more confused as to the suggestion you posted - that people that found issues with said thread should start an entire new one, instead of sharing their issues in a post.

I /wish/ that were the case. The way things currently stand involve everyone not giving the slightest shit about random hallway blood.