Frances

bump

Honestly, what I think Crescentise was referring to is something that can be relatively well understood by reading the previous complaints that were made yesterday, even without having known Ana beforehand. All she seems to be saying is that a character ended up acting like a dick ICly, in a way that people found unfun OOCly, and that there are no clearly stated rules that dictate exactly how to face these situations. All of this is accurate.

I never meant to imply that I believe the attacks against Sue are an organized conspiracy (in fact I tried to manifest my understanding that these are complaints by players disgruntled by her actions, not with her as a person). The only conspiracy I have referred to is the one some of you seem to believe is existing between Sue and the staff. If I have failed in making that clear, then I apologize for causing a misunderstanding. I'd like us to step back for a bit here and look at what we know to be absolute facts. These are: 1. Several people have expressed discontent with Sue's actions, both presently and in the past 2. There is a discernible majority of people who currently oppose Sue 3. No action has currently been taken against Sue There are all the facts we seem to be agreeing on. However, can we take these facts, alone, and immediately jump to the conclusion that people are defending Sue with full knowledge that her actions are unjust, simply because they all happen to be friends with her? (Or maybe, in a more believable argument, that they are blinded by this friendship, and refuse to accept the points presented from the other side of the issue?) Because that seems wrong to me. Much like many of you are convinced that Sue is out to kill as many people as possible for not respecting her IC ideals, you seem to be believing that the administration itself is buddy-buddy with Sue and obfuscating the due processes of moderation as much as possible for the sake of... what, exactly? Wouldn't it be much more reasonable to assume that the actions Sue (and by extent several other players) have engaged on are simply a hot and controversial topic, one that the community cannot agree on, and is not clearly stated into the rules, thus making it one that should be discussed but that no user should currently be held accountable against? In fact, I am rather shocked to find most of you seem to be immediately assuming the worst out of this player, without trying to understand clearly the situation that has happened. For example, when Sue killed Katana as a Vox, some people accused her of "staying around [Oliver Stefan's body] in order to kill the next person who came to find it". These accusations are frankly unneeded and 100% counterproductive to proper conflict resolution. Assuming the worst out of a player without having a proper grasp of the situation is exactly what makes some SS13 servers so terrible because admins are constantly ready to jump the gun. I have never been on teamspeak. Additionally, the fact that you seem to be under the impression that I will be promoted to headmin without a fault simply because I have manifested interest in modding for the server again shows your willingness to jump to conclusions.

You are falling behind a fallacy by saying that because your side of the argument has strength in numbers, it must consequentially be right. The crux of your point is that many people believe in the same thing, yes? If you actually believe that your argument can stand on its own, then you should be able to debate it for what it is, and not by saying "well a lot of people think like me, sooo..." Also A conversation was closed because it turned into literally 10 pages of pointless back and forth, with people ignoring arguments brought up by the defendant of the complaint and staff themselves. This pretty much goes like someone trying to contest a staff decision over and over without listening - you can only repeat the same story so many times to a person before deciding they're not worth the effort, if your explanations won't get through to them. At this point, we're not even arguing about the issue anymore. We're arguing about whether we should argue about the issue, and nothing will come out of that. The question is not one of favoritism, but one of whether rules have been broken or not. The example of "if it were a bald you wouldn't have done it" is irrelevant.

There is a reason why the comments like the one you posted above get deleted. They're not conductive to dialogue because of the way you present them. This goes past tone policing - the simple fact is that you won't get a straight answer out of a person by riling them up. Thus snide remarks end up being removed, because they do little more than start flame wars. And yes, you can say that people need to toughen up, and accept what you have to say at face value, no matter how rude you might be while saying it. But the truth is they simply won't, and you can't do anything about that. So you are the one that needs to adapt, in the end. If you don't, you're simply posting here to hear yourself speak.

I will actually disagree with you here. I've seen a few people express outright and blatant hostility towards you (though not always on the forums), but I sincerely do believe most of the people on here simply think you are doing a bad job. The few that seem to go "we're gonna burn Sue to a stake" sadly do smudge that line, but overall a lot of criticism does not come on a personal level, but is aimed directly at your actions (whether you or anyone finds that criticism valid or not is not important - we're simply trying to determine what it's targeting.) As I said in the passage you have just quoted, most if not all of the recent complaints against her have been dismissed, yet people still keep holding them as true when they are not. I have seen people saying she attacked a FT while being another FT over the detective's gun (which is false), and beat someone simply for standing on a cargo tug (which is also false). My full opinion on this (to clarify) is that there is a semi-constant stream of complaints (written and not) against Sue, with some prior complaints against her being retained, but little to no recent material being applicable, or worthy of punishment. (The only thing I can think of would be her being quick on the draw in killing somebody as a Vox, though it's become pretty hard to discuss with the amount of noise that surrounded that complaint). A new player made a complaint because a situation seemed dubious (the ribs cracking and six attack messages, as well as the HoS being originally aggressive over unknown circumstances.) The situation was then explained, and closed by an admin, who also offered he would get any of his colleagues to review the thread as well if someone wanted to contest his decision. If you still think Sue did wrongly in that thread, the very first thing you should do is PM that admin and ask for a review, not post here. (Also, I'm not replying to Skull's post right away because it's a lot to think about. I will later.) (inb4 whoever is using an alt here gets their comments deleted for using an alt and being somewhat rude in presenting them, then complains staff is muzzling them)

I actually like Fortune and don't know what you're afraid of, haha. Perhaps because of the amount of time you spend playing her, I would say she is one of the most mature and established characters on the station. Her presence is very agreeable, she's personable, friendly, and generally feels reliable and mature both as a scientist (well, roboticist) and RD.) I've made jokes about her hair, but honestly, she feels like a very natural character and I have no problems seeing her around v.v She seems to be responsible and have a good grasp of things, but it also doesn't feel like she's trying too hard, or is overconfident.

I don't understand why you're drawing these conclusions. There's no particular reason to believe those things - Zonk hasn't been ignored or mistreated, staff (and even I) haven't ignored anything said about Sue but rather tried to explain clearly why we disagreed with you guys, and it's obvious people aren't scared of Sue if they're all so willingly speaking against her now. There's been regular complaints against Sue in her time here (both retained and most recently dismissed), staff have called her out on her behavior (at least one or twice wrongly), and as an ex-member of staff I can say her situation is being moderated appropriately, and she isn't very different from any normal player right now. (Though I wonder, if more members of staff come in here to say this, if you will accuse them of favoritism too.) Occam's razor would in fact have you believe that: 1. People make complaints against Sue when they see behavior they dislike 2. Some of these complaints have been thrown out because her actions were not found to be inappropriate 3. The reason why Sue has not been banned is because she has not broken the rules or engaged in unacceptable behavior enough to be There's nothing right now that does indicate a more complicated story. I don't want to be rude, but this is really coming out of nowhere.

Yes, I'd consider this settled. I'd like to see the operative who chose to detonate the nuke talked to, at least? I don't know who it was and don't really want to bother making another complaint for the same thing, but I believe they should've given a clearer warning that a nuke was just about to blow up, or at least adminhelp their plan.

It sucks that this thread is going to turn into another "let's debate Sue's actions" discussion, though if anyone wants to bring any other input to save it, they're free to do so. Otherwise, it'll probably end up locked soon. Anyhow, in the meantime. I know at this point that you are misinformed, because the only two incidents I know of involving Sue as the detective have both been provided ample justification for. Tell me concrete stories of admin action being taken against Sue. Link me to threads. Anything, at this point. But stop throwing around hyperboles of "she did bad" without providing actual foundation, because I've spent roughly 70 posts replying to these today and I'm honestly getting tired of it. Except no one provided anything? Aside from one incident Brage mentioned, which Sue herself mentioned was essentially Brage refusing to cooperate OOCly over a bug, which makes him look at fault more than anything else. Retaliated how, exactly? If your biggest fear in life is that someone on the internet might say mean words at you, you might want to reevaluate your life. Furthermore, the fact that Sue usually only ends up displaying hostility with reason (I'm not saying it's my favorite approach, but there is always a foundation of logic behind it) makes this even sadder. No player has stated that. The only people who would be in favor of jobbanning the bald are the same who would want to jobban Sue, whereas the people who do not think Sue was to blame (such as Doomberg) have clearly stated they would not ban the bald either. This point is essentially moot. Except her entire argument consisted of explaining clearly both her IC and OOC reasoning for every action she was accused of. How can you say laughing at people is all she's ever done? I do not think Sue should be rude to other people in the way that she often is, but I understand her not having the patience of a saint after dealing with 10000+ complaints. You are free to call her out on the way she phrases her arguments, though I ask you try not to ignore their content while doing so, which would be tone policing. (And you'll notice that although I called out Inverted on that jab because I found it ruined his credibility, I still did my best to address his full argument.) I actually do believe I made my best effort to reply to every single point that was brought up (while several of my points were ignored repeatedly, and I had to repeat them 3, 4 times to multiple people). If there are any counterarguments I have ignored, feel free to bring them up here and I will reply to them now. As of now, we simply have differing opinions. But I don't think it's fair to call me biased (though there's little I can do to stop you or change your mind) - the only reason why I am defending Sue is because I believe she is being wronged, not because she is my friend.

Yeah, that does help clear up the situation. The one thing I was missing from this was your point of view, and now that that's a lot clearer I find it hard to blame you for any of what happened, given that the situation seemed like a lose/lose either way. If anything, I think it was rather bad for the nuke ops to detonate the nuke this early. If the nuke was detonated as a direct result of the shuttle being called, it would have been nice if they had clearly stated they wanted the shuttle recalled, thus giving the crew a chance to continue the round, rather than ending it there. Otherwise, it's sort of like holding someone hostage, never fully explaining to the people you're trying to coerce that you have a hostage or what you expect them to do/not do, then shoot the hostage the moment anything goes wrong. If the nuke ops had explained more clearly their intent, they could have easily gotten the shuttle recalled.

I actually can't see how Bokaza was metagrudged against on a personal level. Complaints made against him were made following certain convictions or beliefs, which puts him in the exact same situation Sue has been in, with the only difference being you don't think Bokaza deserved any of these complaints, while you think Sue did. However, calling Sue one of the server's most popular members is honestly false given I've seen a lot of people hate her (sorry, Sue) and absolutely no one defend her or speak for her besides me. Going as far as to say she has benefited from an "advantage" due to this is also something I can't agree on, given that complaints against her were handled by a multitude of staff and mods, and saying that the administration has been overly lenient towards her would essentially imply that the administration as a whole is crooked. People are speaking up about being upset, and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing bad about the act of making complaints alone - what I would like to discuss is why people feel the need to make these complaints, because there are a lot of behaviors I'm seeing go heavily criticized that I don't think should be criticized. And I'd like to see if I'm alone in thinking that way. I might be. If I am, that's too bad. But until I'm proven that I'm the only person remaining on the server to think that way, I'm going to try my best to defend these users, because I believe the way they're being treated is unfair.

BYOND Key: FFrances Player Byond Key: K0NFL1QT Reason for complaint: Possibly bad judgement call in following laws as an AI Approximate Date/Time: 16-APR-2015, approx. 1:30AM EST. I'm going to preface this by saying that this is a very minor complaint on my part, and I'm not looking to get K0NFL1QT punished, simply establish dialogue regarding a nuke round that just happened. I'm not even sure myself if K0NFL1QT was at fault in what he did, but I feel a bit iffy about the entire situation. So yes, I'm making a player complaint because this is the forum to discuss these issues, but don't let that intimidate anyone, it's not the "raaar i'm mad" kind of complaint. Anyway. What happened: During a nuke round, with no command staff on, the syndies had essentially managed to hold the station hostage by planting a series of bombs, and were communicating with the crew in a relatively disorganized way. In the middle of them making their demands (roughly 1h into the round) K0NFL1QT's AI, NTAI-X decided to call the emergency shuttle, as they had discovered a nuclear device had been planted somewhere within the brig. After a few people asking the AI on comms to recall the shuttle, the operatives detonated the nuke as retaliation for calling the shuttle, ending the round. Why I'm not okay with it: I don't understand the reasoning of calling the shuttle at that point in the round - it is generally poor form to call the emergency shuttle in the middle of a threat, OOCly because it cuts the round short, and ICly because "evacuating under code red is dangerous" (which is a fairly valid excuse, you want to let the round play out and ensure the threat has been mostly neutralized before sending a shuttle and evacuating everyone). Even ICly, the call was hard for me to justify, because the station had already bombed at that point, and was being held hostage by mercs - if that situation is not worthy of a shuttle call, I do not know how the addition of a nuke into the mix changes things. What bothers me is that it seemed obvious that the syndies were in control of the situation, and were perfectly able to detonate the nuclear device if the station crew showed any intent of resisting, for example by calling the shuttle. Furthermore, several members of the crew clearly stated they were under the impression syndies would detonate the nuke were the shuttle not recalled. Calling the shuttle at that point (and refusing to recall it, though the AI might've simple not have had the time to) seems like it would endanger the station far more than it would help it. In the end, it cut the round short, which kinda sucked, and while I'm not upset at all at the syndies for following up on their threat, I sort of end up finding myself wishing the shuttle hadn't been called over something that seems illogical. Anyway, hopefully K0NFL1QT can shed some light on why he made that call.

We're missing Covert/Tuiee-era spider infestations. If I get made into an admin again, I promise to bring back daily spider infestation rounds.

That doesn't really represent the problem well :/ A certain category of players has been catching a lot of flak recently for reasons I feel are unjust. This does not mean there's anything inherently wrong with the complaints system, simply that people don't seem to be agreeing on how the game should be played.

It only protects security and heads for now, though. I don't really see why it wouldn't be okay to be a douche to a sec member, but okay to do the same thing to another employee.

Sure! I didn't actually think of that, maybe because it feels harder for me to "invent" rivals (I'd rather have my characters hate others based on incidents I got to partake in myself), but I can see how it'd be really cool to have a rival in research, for example. (Two genius doctors that don't agree with each other's publications, or are trying to beat the other at discovering something first).

I'm not sure what the first part of your statement is trying to say. Anyway, I am really intent on trying to discuss what I think is a larger underlying issue, but if you want to believe that I'm simply lying, there is very little I can do to stop you. On a perhaps more pertinent note, after a bit of thinking, I managed to find one big difference between other characters that were cited as "acceptable" dicks, and Ana (as well as other heads, officers, and antagonists). Whereas most of the time the only consequences a player will face from getting involved with a dickish character is that they might not get what they want, dealing with an officer, member of command, or heaven forbid, antagonist is much more likely to result in you ending up in a cell, or dead. What should we make of that? I don't know. I don't mind being maimed, imprisoned or killed for the sake of RP, but I know some people do. I tried, and so did Sue, to provide an answer to your complaint (which is that you had been shot without warning). I actually did end up siding with you once I learned Sue had a reasonably accessible method of contacting you and did not make use of it. Out of curiosity, what else would you have liked people to do to respond to that complaint better?

I'm actually only concerned with what's going on in this particular complaint (and I guess the precedent that I'm still waiting for people to provide). I'm not going to assume people are mad or holding a grudge; I will simply look at their arguments, and state the reasons why I agree with them or not. For guessing whether people are mad at the larger underlying problem of sec/heads doing certain things, there's another thread for that.

I am not defending her actions on technicalities. I am trying to do my best to proceed logically on this matter. You all keep saying that this behavior is something she has consistently repeated - if this is the case, then it would make sense to ask for proof of it, no?

I have asked every single one of you to provide one single valid example of Sue recently doing something bad as a security officer. You have so far collectively failed to do so. Well, there's a difference between crazy characters and characters that are mean (simply due to personality, or because they're having a bad day). Crazy characters are pretty rare irl, dickheads aren't. Dickheads also generate more believable and mature RP than crazy characters tend to (you'll notice lots of shows or stories have someone who's an asshole, but few have someone who's mentally unstable. Plus a lot of people are terrible at RPing crazy characters.)

I've noticed quite a few people have either siblings, or friends they've met off-station. Much like the Character Adoption thread, the purpose of this thread would be to facilitate creating these relationships, for those who are looking for a roleplay partner, but are not sure who to ask. The template is pretty similar to the one Crescentise posted, with the exception that you should be indicating what sort of character you're looking for (brother, sister, advisor, drinking buddy, etc). [b]Player Key:[/b] [b]Character Name:[/b] [b]Character Age:[/b] [b]Occupation(s):[/b] [b]Description:[/b] [b]Looking for:[/b] [b]Available:[/b] Y/N That is all. Have fun!

Psst. I don't think Jamini is speaking of a programming code.

But you don't believe that by running away instead of submitting to the arrest and trying to protest it in a peaceful manner, the other involved party was exposing themselves to the consequences of that? I'm not saying they fucked up either. But the harmbatonning didn't happen "just cause".

This sums up the issue excellently. (Well, there's a lot of noise in the current two complaints, and not all of it is related, but at the core, this is it.) I think these characters deserve their place and should be allowed to exist. Some people seem to believe they are a failure of proper and responsible roleplay, as an antag, head, or member of security. Some people want players to have more freedom to be ICly abusive in roles of powers. Some don't. Which direction should the server take? I don't know. But this is something I would expect admins to eventually release a statement on.