Frances

Basically, various alcoholic substances give a different amount of halloss on ingestion. This would mainly produce hilarious results with people trying to down full glasses of absinthe/whatever pure alcohol.

I don't know you very well personally, nor do I have close ties with any of the current staff. However, looking at this as another player, isn't it possible you were simply jobbanned because you broke your synthetic laws to dish out street justice, instead of forwarding the issue to an admin? I doubt anyone actually hates you.

Not sure where to put this, but if you need any help with the ground map, feel free to send me a PM. There's a few areas I made that I'm not really happy with and would be glad to fix, if nobody else feels like doing it.

If we add pods, I wouldn't mind mapping a bunch of extra goodies (or z-levels) to explore. I'm sure some other mappers would have fun helping, too.

only one solution: halloss for alcohol

Can you elaborate on that? It'd be easier to understand where you're coming from if you could give us a good idea of how you'd like to see the bar being used.

People who drink themselves into a coma get brigged, demoted, and fired. This isn't really an issue we need to curb more than we already do, imo. I don't like the idea of taking away people's tools just because some of them could be idiots with them - there's a good set of IC and OOC consequences already in place to deal with these situations.

So, just out of curiosity, why did Callum resort to shooting down sec rather than trying to explain in LOOC that he had to go? In my general experience, if you have to go, most (like 95% of players) will be kind enough to accommodate you. Cryo is also (mostly) sacred - you don't fuck with it, and in turn players leave you alone when you use it. Wouldn't it have been better to try to talk to the sec players about that, than to try to provoke further conflict?

They don't? I thought the captain had the ability to override anybody's judgement (within reason).

I can get behind this. With the communal brig and its little visitation room, the security wing pretty much harbors the perfect conditions to accommodate lawyers. Vacant office is kinda nice for antagging/renovations, but there's plenty of areas where we could squeeze an extra room.

I'm not gonna walk in and ask everybody kiss and make up, but judging from your respective posts, you both seem fairly tense about the issue in an OOC perspective. Wouldn't it be better to take a calmer and more positive attitude to resolve this? I doubt anybody here is actually out for blood, but neither of you seem to be projecting your intents well. As Ryfer said, time to take a step back, and figure out how this can be resolved amicably between players?

The only purpose of lawyers (that I know of) is to make sure prisoners are brigged justly and over properly evidenced offenses. IAAs make sure everyone sticks to the SOP (and respects corporate regs as well, in some cases security can't verify/enforce.) Replacing one by the other, isn't that... turning an apple into an orange? Or something.

Jamini is right. A tool like this would mean no antags outside of engineering building impromptu stuff. In general, it'd either limit construction to engineering exclusively (the device being too complicated to be used by non-engineers), or overcomplicate the building process for the sake of "realism" while bringing little else (if anyone can get it and use it anyway, and it has little bearing on gameplay, why even have it?).

I believe we've proven loyalty implants don't prevent you from breaking corporate regs in our lore. Thus, it might be a bit cheap if IAAs couldn't get arrested, because I do see some of them commit minor crimes (and land brig time) from time to time.

They don't have to put up with the shit of everybody on the station. In comparison, a captain will almost always be busy dealing with antags/anybody that needs generic help/erp. The way I see it, right now, IAAs are "Duty Officers lite". They're easier to get into, are readily available, and are perfectly capable of conducting excellent investigations when played to their full power (who cares if they can't demote somebody for one shift, they have the power of getting heads to act for them in-round, and DOs to act for them in the overall station canon). If you make them a entire supercomplex department with a whitelist, sub-titles and their own head of staff, they'll just lose all of their accessibility for being a powerless and watered-down (but just as elitist) version of DOs. That sort of suppresses their current purpose, imo. Or perhaps, to support my point better, I'd ask: "Why would you choose to deal with things as your proposed version of an IAA when you could be a DO instead?" Plus we have no more than 2-3 regular IAA players. I strongly feel like whitelisting the job will cause it to fall into oblivion, as nobody will bother to experiment with the role due to the additional effort needed. And for little gain, as well. IAAs are loyalty-implanted - it's probably the easiest job to jobban bad players from.

If it's about discussing "small and minor ideas" for fun, then a single thread might suit our needs alright (especially given that I am of the opinion that if more people were interested in discussing the lore, we would see more lore threads). On the other hand, I think everyone has observed that lore discussions (even the fun and minor ones) can get really long-winded here, so trying to curate a single thread for a group of them might simply result in chaos.

I mean, if Delta's happy, and everyone is happy, then so be it. Delta's admitted (even to me) that he has issues with temper and I can see poor antag play combined with a poor attitude towards players culminating in an antag ban, and opening the door for a possible appeal/discussion later on (which we're at, here). Don't get me wrong, I think the main focus of this appeal (as Skull intended) should be on the behavior Delta displayed (maybe being dismissive, or rude to others at time). However, call me a concerned onlooker, but there's a few minor things that bug me about the way this has been handled (which doesn't mean we should ignore the reason the ban is here and what there is to discuss. Yeah.) The head whitelist ban hasn't been explained. There might be a good reason for it to have been put in place, but if so I'd like to hear about it, because I can only think of bad ones atm. Giving a misbehaving player an ultimatum, specifically in the case where both suggested options appear to be arbitrary punishments. Like "would you rather be globalbanned for a month or antagbanned forever?" What purporse does this serve, exactly? It's not the first time I've seen staff do this and I'm honestly confused by it. So yeah, these two things. They're not quite the focus of the issue, but they're not minor either in my eyes.

Wouldn't this just turn IAAs into DOs? At that point, why not simply apply to be a DO? I believe you might want to highlight more precisely how IAAs remain different from DOs in your suggestion.

wut

Minor crimes are often poorly realized. For the one person who puts on a good show, we usually get about 5-6 that do nothing but scream at security and constantly try to break out of cells. I don't see this being very successful. The coolest antags are the ones that execute grand master plans anyway - having a gamemode whose sole purpose is to have disorganized individuals fill up permabrig (and that isn't rp-rev) seems more like an exercise in frustration than anything else.

Alternatively, maybe have Jackboot talk to the staff in question? I remember a month or two ago, someone made an app to have an albino Unathi, a few people discussed the pros and cons of it, then Jackboot posted his official stance (allowing it). Tool came in shortly after and deleted the entire comment thread, save for Jackboot's post, with the intent of clearing up the app. A lot of interesting conversation was lost, and I don't really see the problem in an app being one vs two pages long. Just to say it's a problem I agree has been happening. (And I'm not mentioning Tool for the sake of namecalling, but just, because that's what happened. It could've been anybody else.)

This is the most elaborate species app I've ever seen. It's also the first time in about a year I've seen Sue express interest towards playing a character other than Ana (and even when she did, it was because she didn't have her Tajaran whitelist on Aurora yet). The borg I saw her play at that time (Toots) contributed to some of the funniest stuff I've seen on the server, and I'm honestly very excited about this. I'm not going to comment much on the backstory, because I'm more concerned with addressing the issues a few people have raised. That IPCs have some quirky game mechanics that can be abused in ridiculous ways. And I personally don't see this as being a problem with Sue. Why? Looking at the incidents that involved Sue/Ana in the past, Sue showed a marked disdain for antags, as well as somewhat of a lack of respect for procedure vs "doing things Ana's way" (when it made sense and when less so). Basically all IPC chucklefuckery is markedly opposed to Sue's mentality - abusing IPC mechanics requires doing incredibly silly and nonsensical stuff, and I know Sue to (as a whole) be a person that hates nonsense and using game mechanics for the heck of it when they follow no "in-universe" logic. Yes, Sue knows how to use SS13 combat to her advantage (as should most people who get involved in combat regularly), and I don't think we should punish anyone simply because they know how to play the game. If there's something that confers someone what seems to be an unfair advantage, we're going to nerf it, not ask the person who's using it within perfectly reasonable IC and OOC right to stop using it (as happened with snipers. Sue and a few other people were decimating players into fights with snipers, so we nerfed them.) If we start seeing incredibly robust IPCs, then it'll hopefully make people learn ways to counter them (ion rifle instakills them, most EMPs instakill them too). If they're found to have no counters in certain situations, they'll be given weaknesses, or certain of their strengths will be toned down. But barring specific people from a vast array of roleplay opportunities simply because "they might be too good at combat" seems incredibly unfair to me, especially when anyone else would be just as free to use IPCs in that way.

Here's my personal take on it. Might just be ramblings, take it however you will. Whitelists allow staff a greater control over what goes on in each department. I'm sure you all have a few players/characters you find sub-par on the server (whoever they might be). Whether they be incompetent, belligerent, or simply seem to lack respect for roleplay as a whole. (And I'm not talking about characters we love to hate, I'm talking about those people dislike OOCly.) A lot of these characters aren't terrible enough to warrant OOC punishment. Yes, some players have gotten in trouble, some are getting talked to, but at the bottom of the line, banning/jobbanning a lot of these people would cause ethical debates over what constitutes playing/roleplaying properly, and tbh make us way too strict of a community. However, most of the actions people dislike from these players/characters are not actions that would fly as a head of staff. Thus, heads of staff can remain relatively sane and reasonable characters, whose jobs are to enforce standards (both IC and OOC ones) among their departments. And yes, you could just say, "just jobban the people who are terrible heads", but the process of establishing an appropriate response/punishment for a problematic player who isn't an outright griefer can often be a complex and lengthy one. There would be more bad heads if heads weren't whitelisted, and it would be difficult to control/deal with them all. Imo, it's easier to ensure players are good for these positions than to ensure they aren't bad.

Except shouldn't we try to curb overconfident, overaggressive characters, to a point? Because by that logic, you can write off most of the actions of shitty sec as personality quirks. Anyway, just a thought. The original context under which the complaint was made was a bit more suspicious, but I don't like how Techno basically complained of gank in LOOC and insulted the involved players after the fact. (He also tried to ask them to make him an AI after he died, for some reason.)

Even as Techno himself said, Really, in my opinion, Techno had no business trying to detain the vox in such a ridiculous manner (consider: if a group of nuke ops were on station and hadn't proven to be outright violent yet, what sort of behavior would an officer ramboing with a stunbaton promote?). This would fall under improper escalation of a fight: you know if you try to arrest a group of antags alone, without as much of a word, you're going to get BTFO.