Frances

Can we look at that, and maybe accept that trying to push our opinion as an absolute one, while saying that everyone else is wrong, is maybe not the best way to proceed? I wouldn't be surprised if people were simply divided about the game mode - much like people can be very divided about nuke, rev, cult, any other antag mode, or heck, anything that's not extended. I believe the best situation would be to put ninja on trial, after fixing the issues people have highlighted. (Stealth is OP? Nerf dat.) That way, everyone can get an accurate portrayal of what ninja rounds would be like on Aurora, in the year 2015, with the balance we'll have chosen to enforce. And people can make up their minds then.

Maybe to provide some context to my actions, my own posting (when it delves into off-topic arguments) has always been driven by a desire to defend people I saw as being targeted unjustly, or respond to accusations made against my person (I frankly don't really care that much, but I'm afraid if I don't try to explain why I think people calling me a X or whatever are in the wrong, they'll later use it as further evidence in their claims because "I had nothing to say"). At the end of the day, some people are being dealt bullshit, and then that bullshit simply sticks because people are being told "not to argue anymore" and all conflicts are left unresolved which results in a lot of people being mad and disliking each other. Yes, most of this isn't terribly relevant, but apart from pointing that out, there's not much I can do, because I'm not staff. I'd appreciate if staff were more involved in directing these topics (and sorting out the good from the bad), but - nobody seems to want to get involved. I myself have lost quite a bit of faith in the usefulness of these repeated threads, as little, little discussion about the issues I believe are the most crucial are taking place. If anything, I'm just considering giving up, and not getting involved anymore, unless it's to show direct support for people I believe are being wronged or misrepresented in one way or another (which is the only thing I wanted to do as far as arguments are concerned). About all the arguments, if people actually want to have a clear and civil discussion to find out (or explain to me) if I'm being disruptive or not - and so that we can actually try to reach an agreement - I'm always glad to talk via PM or on pager. If, however, you're more interested in simply proving to others how wrong I am, rather than trying to understand my viewpoint or share your own with me, then that makes me rather sad though I suppose little can be done on my end about it.

You're being dishonest again. If you intend to actively involve yourself in our weekly emotional meltdowns, stop doing that. Please. You're just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. Huh, I completely forgot about Chaz. My bad. (No need to be a douche, though.) I flat out didn't remember anyone leaving because of Sue - which is why I didn't further the argument - but I'd like to point out that several people (including staff) have told me that Chaz had "an outright vendetta going on with Sue", so there might be more going on with that than just a disgruntled player leaving because staff refused to heed them. Edit: My goal isn't to tone police, but I'd like to add that the way you phrased your post, immediately jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to be disruptive (instead of considering the much simpler possibility that I simply forgot about Chaz) really makes me feel like you're more concerned with winning this argument than you are with figuring out how we can solve everybody's issues. 2nd edit: Not entirely correct, either. I remember the reason why I didn't immediately thought of Chaz is because he cited "being backed into a corner by staff over the issues with Sue". So that makes it seem more like he left because he couldn't agree with staff and didn't like the way things were being debated, than because the Sue issue was so terrible he couldn't stand to leave it running rampant. Anyway, I thought this thread was about people being mean and overly dramatic/passionate about minor issues, not about whatever Sue did. And it's ironically starting to turn into the very thing it's supposed to out. Like, err, every thread before it.

I'm going to object to that because it's outright false. Like... I don't get how you've gotten the idea I've been hounding Valkrae. All I've done was make a complaint to try to understand what Valkrae did, and figure out if his actions (specifically stealthily setting up the nuke with minor involvement of the crew, even with IC reason) were something that should be avoided in the future. I did not demand Valkrae be punished, insist his behavior should be curbed at all cost, and in fact I believe I made it very clear (to him, when I put up the complaint) that I wasn't the least bit angry and was simply looking to discuss the events. Additionally, the only reason why it's lasted a month is because he has been slow to reply himself :/ In comparison, I believe Sue has had to endure several pages of unfounded attacks, including incidents she had to explain herself only for people to ignore her explanations and accuse her again of irrational behaviors she provided perfectly reasonable explanations for, as well as dismissing facts established by staff by looking at the code. (and no, I don't agree with everything Sue has done or said in that thread - and I've called her out myself when I believed her arguments weren't on point or that she was in the wrong.) Can you explain to me in more detail why you compare the two situations? (btw, feel free to reply on here, but if you're interested in continuing this argument I'll probably reply to you via PM, just so the thread doesn't delve into OT too much.) That is... not true. While you can say that the complaints were dismissed by staff (which does not make them valid or invalid by itself), not a single person has cited, or hinted at Sue being present (or the way administration handled her) being one of their reasons for leaving. The only thing in all this people have referred to as a deterrent for being part of the community is the bantering that seems to continuously take place.

I have nothing to say, but that I wish we had a "This"/Like button for posts.

I suppose the alternative to that would be to have players submit complaints privately, then get the staff to investigate the incident and mediate/discipline directly with the people involved. The two downsides to that is that firstly, it would require a lot more effort on the part of the staff, as you likely couldn't use the forums for it anymore (so assigning a staffmember to a case, getting them to track the offending user, and so on), and secondly, the input of other users, both players and staff, would be severely minimized. I do think that input from everybody in the community has its worth. When a question such as "were this players' actions good or bad for the round" is raised, anyone can provide an opinion given accurate information, not only people who were directly involved. Additionally, people might have their own contributions to bring to a complaint - for example, I've often seen repeat offenders have several incidents rightfully reported against them solidifying a complaint that would've resulted in lighter action being taken had other users not seen it and decided to speak up as well.

I don't particularly care if this guy was had been an antagonist. And although he clearly wasn't (it was ling), I don't really care about him not being one either. What I do care about isn't the fact that this player chucklefucked quite a lot, but that he wasn't even funny while doing it. This is terrible.

I'm not upset at any of you. In fact, my only goal in being here is to do my best to ensure everyone can have as much fun as possible (while maybe having a little bit of fun myself). I really appreciate that you've all come to be part of this community so we can play games together.

I said that I found the reaction I described natural. It is something that I understand, and while I appreciate people who can move past that, I don't expect everybody to. There's varying degrees of the behavior we discussed, and some are more acceptable than others. There are instances where people have presented things in an acceptable manner and been dismissed on trivialities, and there are instances where people have presented things in an utterly dickish way and been dismissed in a way I cannot hold anyone else responsible for. For example, I find no issue with Cassie's posts. While she says she does not care about tone, I've never seen her write anything snide, mocking, or unjust about anyone. Other people, for various reasons, have engaged in aggressive and disruptive behavior - ranging from aggressive cursing, insults, ridiculing others' points, and so on. I believe these are both issues worth being looked at - people being overly aggressive in their posts, and people dismissing acceptable posts under the guise of tone.

All I'm saying is, if someone debates like an asshole, even if they're right, no one's going to listen to them. Quick example: Person A writes a rather acerbic reply to a question from person B, while also addressing said question. Later, person A is accused of "dismissing" the previous question by person B, because the tone they used was dismissive, although person A did also provide a clear answer. In this case, person B, more preoccupied with the appearance of the message than its content, feels like their question is not being taken seriously because of the way the response was written. I would honestly find person B's reaction natural. Yes, you should do your best to judge people on what they say, not just on how they say it, but if someone acts like an asshole and no one listens to them because they act like an asshole (even if they're right), that's pretty much their own fault. Additionally, when large groups of people start doing this, it becomes very hard to "discipline" them, because again, you're not trying to serve justice here, you are trying to get these people to understand you.

It is poor practice to dismiss what someone says because of the way they say it, but your objective (as a part of a community where everyone should do their best to get along) is to get others to agree with you, not simply to be right. And sadly, some people will ignore you because of tone, no matter what - which is why I believe it is important that we encourage people to moderate themselves in the way they choose to deliver their messages, because if not, it *will* create unavoidable conflict. As for the other thing, can you contact me on the pager? My ckey is FFrances, with two Fs.

I'll help you out! Lemme know the next time you're around, I'm on often enough.

I disagree with you to a point. Tone policing can be a problem, but as not everyone has the ability to call to reason 100% of the time and judge people solely on the content of their messages (while ignoring their tone), I can say that people will have a much easier time getting their point across if they're being polite. And you can say that "yeah, people need to be like me and stop being mad", but it won't stop them from being mad. That's a bit of why I feel like I'm at an impasse as to how to solve the issue of people being upset, actually. Also, if you're drawing your impression of criticism being dismissed due to being "hateful" from several events, then carry on, but if most of this idea stems from the Sue threads, I'd like to raise an opposition. Not only was a large sum of the comments posted there ignoring either the established context of the complaints, or accusing Sue of engaging in continued negative behavior (without providing any evidence), but even after reviewing facts, staff chose not to punish Sue, because, you know, she wasn't being terrible. I had asked repeatedly to be provided with evidence in that thread; nothing tangible was provided, which is why I feel comfortable calling it an actual attack. Edit: I also think the reason why people showed animosity towards Sue is because they were convinced bad behavior had occurred, and not because they don't like her face or something. Why so many people seemed to think the same thing, I don't know - but one of the major issues is that people categorically refused to listen to a lot of evidence and explanations posted in that thread.

broccoli are actually colonies of tiny aliens with murder on their minds

Added points for addictions, and clarified the questions about age, because joke tests are srs bzns.

Well hey, you've still got Melody's high score of 1505 to beat.

Answer that, at least? Also, aside from the discussion with Valkrae, I'm basically waiting for another member of staff to weigh-in. Do believe Valkrae's actions were justified, or could he have done better? (I'm not looking for a punishment, just to see if I was right or not to make this complaint, and if this is the kind of behavior Valkrae should make a point to avoid in the future or not.) Edit: I'm actually confused now. Valkrae's previous post clearly states he gave up on arming the nuke (which I failed to ask more about, for some reason). Why did the nuke blow, exactly?

The server is down, we're bored, let's do a quiz. //Consecutive charges are additional //For example, if your character were a human with an unusual eye color, you would score 25 and 50 points additively, totalling 75 ###PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES### My character is a... -Human ............................................................................ 0 -IPC ................................................................................ 50 -Unathi ............................................................................ 100 -Tajaran ........................................................................... 200 -Skrell .............................................................................. -50 -Dionae ............................................................................. -100 If human, my character's skin color is... -White -............................................................................. 50 -Hispanic or Asian ................................................................ -50 -Black or any other color ........................................................ -75 .........And is female ............................................................ -25 -Albino ...................................................................,......... 300 If non-human (IPCs exempt), my character's skin/fur color is... -A normal color for his/her species ............................................ 0 -An unusual color ................................................................ 50 -A very rare color/a color I completely made up ............................ 150 If human, my character's hair color is... -Brown/black/white and over 50 .............................................. 0 -Blonde ............................................................................ 25 -Red .........And is male ............................................................. -50 .........And is female ........................................................... 50 -White and under 50 ............................................................. 50 .........Under 25 ................................................................. 50 -Dyed hair ......................................................................... 100 -Extra complicated hairstyle bonus (twintails, floorlength braid, etc.) ... 100 My character's eye color is... -Green/brown/an usual color for an alien ..................................... 0 -Blue ................................................................................ 10 -Another color ..................................................................... 25 .........And is human ............................................................. 50 My character's height is... -More than 1.5 feet under his/her species' average ........................... 25 -Around his/her species' average ................................................ 0 -More than .5 feet above his/her species' average ............................ 25 -More than 1 foot above his/her species' average ............................. 50 My character's age is... -Under 20 .......................................................................... 50 .........And is not an intern/cadet ............................................. 100 -Between 20 and 29 .............................................................. 50 -Between 30 and 39 .............................................................. 10 -40 and above ..................................................................... 0 -Above 60 .......................................................................... -50 My character complexion would be described as... -Plain ............................................................................... -20 -Attractive ......................................................................... 25 -Very attractive ................................................................... 50 -Complete stud/bombshell ....................................................... 100 -Old/wrinkled ..................................................................... -50 -Ugly ............................................................................... -100 -Hideous ............................................................................ 50 My character has the following: -Prosthetic limbs .................................................................. 20 points per limb, 100 for a full set -Assisted/mechanical organs .................................................... 50 -Tattoos ............................................................................ 10 .........In an inordinate amount ................................................ 10 ...............And they are not utterly meaningless .......................... 25 -Missing limbs ..................................................................... 50 point per limb -A debilitating mental disability ............................................... 50 .........Which does not manifest itself in any visible way .................. 25 .........Which manifests itself in a ridiculous way ........................... 50 -Glasses .........And is male .............................................................. -10 .........And is female ............................................................ 25 -Scars .........Which disfigures him/her ...............Moderately ........................................................ -50 ...............Hideously .......................................................... 100 .........But he/she still looks attractive ....................................... 25 -An addiction to cigarettes ..................................................... 25 .........Cigars ..................................................................... 25 -An addiction to alcohol ........................................................ 50 -An addiction to an illegal drug ................................................ 75 ###ABILITIES/COMPETENCES### Compared to an average worker of his/her age in his/her field, my character is... -Underqualified ................................................................. -20 -Perfectly average .............................................................. 0 -Overqualified ................................................................... 25 -Grossly overqualified .......................................................... 100 -Grossly underqualified ........................................................ 75 My character... -Works several departments .................................................. 50 -Has vastly developed skills in an area unrelated to his job .............. 50 .........And is over 40 ......................................................... Void previous charge -Should not hold the position he/she is currently holding ................. 50 -Has bribed or slept his/her way to his/her position ....................... 100 -Is still working on the station despite getting in trouble with the law .. 50 .........Getting in trouble with the law repeatedly ........................ 100 -Is actually an undercover agent for another organization ................ 300 ###SOCIAL/STATUS### My character... -Has slept with somebody from his/her workplace ......................... 25 .........slept with more than three people from his/her workplace ...... 100 -Is a female in a lesbian relationship .......................................... 100 .........and was not originally written as a lesbian .......................... 500 -Has had a relationship with a member of another species .................. 50 .........With a cyborg/station AI ............................................... 250 -Has broken station rules to help a friend ..................................... 50 -Has been used for ERP .......................................................... 200 My character's financial status can be described as... -Excessively poor ................................................................. 25 -Poor ............................................................................... -25 -Middle class ...................................................................... 0 -Rich ............................................................................... 50 -Elite/plutocrat/child of a CEO ................................................. 150 ###OTHER/MISC### My character... -Does not conform to the general tropes that define his/her species ...... 50 .........And has been exiled as a result ....................................... 200 -Has killed a person before ..................................................... 50 .........Intentionally ............................................................ 100 .........Kills people for a living ................................................ 200 -Has an accent/unique speech patterns ....................................... 50 -Is secretly a cyborg/escaped lab experiment ................................ 300 -My character's family died due to unusual circumstances .................. 50 point per relative, up to 200 SCORE CHART: Less than 0: Cheated, please retake test 0 - 250 : Not a snowflake 250 - 500 : Semi-snowflakey 500 - 750 : Snowflake 750 - 1000 : Dangerously snowflakey 1000 + : Oh shit nigga what are you doing ------------------ Have fun, and post your results here!

As I've stated in my own sister-thread, I definitely think that players nowadays have to face much heavier restrictions than they should. And part of it can be attributed to blanket policies. We shouldn't have to worry about if something has potential to be bad. For example, discouraging or disallowing ex-military characters because "they might want to go rambo constantly" - the former does not precede the latter without a fault, and a good roleplayer should be capable of playing an ex-mil character without becoming a frustrating powergamer that foils all the antagonists every round. If issues arise, they can be dealt with then. But I am irked by the idea that a player should be told they can't have something "because it might cause problems", not simply because it is or is certain to.

I'm going to start by prefacing that these kind of threads tend to devolve into very long discussions, where people concentrate on tiny details. Since I'm tempted (and many others are) to discuss these tiny details, and I'm not really sure how to prevent that from happening, I'm going to put a lot of importance on the OP here - refer to it, this is where the content of the thread is, and try to discuss that. If there's ten pages of semi-related stuff, it doesn't really matter, because the core of the message I want to communicate is here. That said. I see three issues with the state of the community. They concern: -The way players react to roleplay -The way moderators make themselves perceived by the community -The way moderators try to enforce roleplay Without further ado, I shall attempt to explain all three. 1. The way players react to roleplay This is honestly the biggest issue we're facing. People getting mad because they died, or because X player did X. The complaints against most of anyone playing security go here, but there's also been some criticism against engineering, command, antags, etc. And the problem isn't in the issues raised (someone did something you find off? Ask them about it, that's fine!), it's in the tone. People seem... very angry. I know some are just passionate (though they should realize manners will help tremendously in getting their way), but this is where I've seen the most ridiculous things. Accusations of favoritism being thrown left and right, people calling each other terrible, accusing the staff of doing nothing, or outright calling to conspiracies... We're a little forum of people trying to play a game. Not the US Senate. I don't understand why so many people feel like everything has to be a war, or that everybody is out to get them. 2. The way moderators make themselves perceived by the community This is something else which has bothered me ever since I was on staff, though I didn't pay much attention to it until now. I can expand on it if needed, but the staff as a whole, especially in adminhelps, is very cold and all business-like. A lot of people should look at their own actions and ask themselves if they need to loosen up. If you're on staff, you're not a police force, you're more like an entertainer or a community manager - your job is to ensure that everything goes smoothly and that people are having fun. I've gotten PMs from staff while playing on completely unknown ckeys, and they've always felt cold, and borderline judgemental. Other people have reported the same, and looking at the way I've dealt with players as an admin myself, I can honestly see why this is the case. And I know this is not the way most of you mean to come off. But the fact that it happens is enough for it to be something worth looking at. 3. The way moderators try to enforce roleplay This is more minor than the other two issues here (you mods generally do a pretty good job at knowing when to tell people or not what not to do), but it's still worth a mention. This is also the issue people have been discussing the most so far (though I think #1 & 2 are more important). It relates mostly to admin-interventionism - people are afraid to act in certain ways, and as Skull mentions in his own thread, there's a lot of people who are pushing for excessive compliance. If it doesn't really matter, let the players handle it. If it doesn't harm anyone, don't invoke a rule against it. As much as possible, leave issues to an organic IC resolution. Things like that. As to how to solve all of these? -You guys need to be nicer to each other. If you're upset about the state of affairs, but you're contributing to the aggression yourself, then you're one of the people in power to bring about the greatest change. Realize that in most cases, people are 100% willing to work with you if you're courteous and polite. -You guys need to be willing to work with each other. If your first reaction when you can't understand someone's viewpoint is to dismiss them as being simply malevolent, you'll never come to a satisfying agreement or conclusion. We're all in the same boat, so try to make an effort to work with your peers. -Staff should set better guidelines on how to engage players, especially in ahelps. Be courteous, encouraging, and positive (well, unless someone's obviously being a dick). But understand that most of the time players who are being boinked either because they broke a rule they were unaware of, or because you're simply checking information, start out being pretty scared, and it's your job to reassure them that the staff here is cool. -A heavier focus needs to be brought back on player freedom. Interventions should be kept to a bare minimum - we shouldn't be asking ourselves "could this potentially pose a problem?", but "is this /actually/ likely to bother others, and how could we create a healthy environment while disturbing players as little as possible?" That won't bring the "fun" spirit of the server back, as it's not something you can really control, (we need events. Tons of silly events.) but it'll hopefully set the groundwork for that kind of spirit to emerge again.

I do believe there are issues to be discussed, and I do think the long and not-always-relevant threads can be of some use, even though they seem to frustrate others a lot. I've actually been able to draw some concrete observations from all of those, that I'd like to bring up to the community. I'll be making my own post in a bit, if nobody opens up the issue again. I really think in the end, you make what you want of the community. These threads don't bother me, and I don't see them as awful, or as a sign that everything has gone to shit. I'd very much think that if you do, then you're also going to be dissatisfied with the community as a whole. It very much goes with the carefree attitude I've been trying to advocate in the thread that just got locked. (PS: Just... don't expect this not to turn into another argument. There were a bunch of people debating a hot issue (well, mostly Tainavaa), their thread got cut short, and now you gave them another thread to move onto. So... yeah.)

Well, I don't think this is something that should really be discussed in this thread. The core of the matter isn't about the issue, but how it was handled.

I honestly just can't support that. I've seen people come to these conclusions a lot (people told me the same thing when I was defending Sue), but the fact is, simply because somebody is disagreeing with you to support another person's viewpoint does not imply they are engaging in favoritism unless there is clear evidence of it. You can say "oh, you're taking that other person's side, so you must be in cahoots with them", but that does not necessarily make it true. I feel like the main thing you find staff did wrong was agree with each other - are we supposed to crucify staffmembers every time a staff complaint is made, simply because of possible accusations of bias or favoritism? Anyway, I can actually explain my stance on this, as one of the involved parties. At the time, I believed it was powergaming, mostly due to the kneejerk reaction of "medbay wants to make their suits easier to access". (Which, looking at it now, well... so, what...?) Anyway, I fell behind several arguments to support my reasoning, from it being unfair for other departments, to it confusing antagonists (but I doubt anyone has ever had their antag plan foiled simply because a department decided to move their hardsuits around). I was looking mostly at the OOC rationale behind contesting your actions, and reconsidering things now, it seems rather weak, which is why I'm willing to admit I was pretty much in the wrong on that debate (and really, I'm sorry. That was all kinda silly.) But never, at any point, did I even notice the names of the other players involved in the complaint, and I can assure you I wasn't thinking "hmm, I must protect Pumpking" or some other kind of insanity. Sometimes, people are simply wrong because they're wrong. There's not always a malevolent intent behind it. This isn't the biggest issue we wanted to discuss, and I'm sorry we're delving slightly OT, but I believe a lot of the complaints you brought up are valid, and I'd like to do my best to clear the air so we can understand decisively which issues need to be addressed or not.

I would like to hear you explain why exactly you think that is, and the exact train of thought that lets you reach this conclusion from the observations you've made. What is the staff's "agenda", in your opinion?

This is going to be my attempt at reformulating and redirecting. What Tainavaa is basically trying to say (if I understand well) is that players should start from the general idea that they're normal, sane-of-mind employees working on a space station, and develop from there in whichever way they want. Aside from obvious cases of grief, character-breaking, or other nefarious actions which obviously detract from the general user experience or break the game in some way (say, everybody acting like an antag at once), the administration should not intervene in telling a player how the game should be played. For staff, two questions: Is this what you want to do? And, do you feel like you've done a good job at doing that, or not? For Tainavaa/non-staff, two questions: Can you elaborate a bit on cases where you feel like you should have been allowed to play a certain way, but weren't? And why do you think staff makes the particular decisions which anger you in these cases, if you had to guess?