Frances

The Baystation corporate regs are good enough for what they do, I don't think we need to go through the trouble of rewriting all of them (and risk omitting something important along the way). The only two I see that are missing is this one (a rule for general harassment and minor dickery), as well as one for maintaining a peaceful and calm working environment (people constantly crack jokes about people they don't even know being killed horribly, and you can't exactly take them in for death threats though you should be able to take them in for something more minor).

I am going to disagree here. I never saw any of these complaints as blood feuds, or anyone pursuing a grudge against someone else. Rather, people are ranting against events and actions that should not be deserving of any blame. Why that happens, I suspect, is because people are either overzealous, or simply refuse to accept that a good part of action RP involves people taking action, and not being nice all the time. But I don't think it's particularly because anyone has beef with another person. Can we not resort to personal attacks, this accomplishes 0% of nothing.

Shit slinging really doesn't do anyone any service. However, a lot of points that Chaz tried to bring up have already been explained in the thread, which is why I'm a bit surprised by his reply.

People should be able to use logic to tell the two apart. I'm not opposing complaints as a whole, or saying that all complaints are bad (whether they be posts or simply verbal), but simply that there seems to be a noticeable anti-antag and anti-fighting sentiment going around, and it's causing some people to catch flak they should not be catching.

I actually did want to hear what the rest of the server thought of it, and not just admins. Anyway, the vote isn't a sacred topic. If you're being persistent about something and refuse to listen to staff I can see being told to quiet down, but talking about the vote at all should not be a taboo equivalent to IC in OOC, or talking about boobs.

I'd advise making the thread now or soon, in this case, before the issue gets forgotten. I'd do it myself but I honestly can't think of a good opening post right now.

That was cleared up with Doomberg, though I don't mind explaining it again. -Kingmatt called a crew transfer vote at 2:58. The vote didn't go through due to the time restrictions, despite being 16-8 in favor. -I go on a short rant/argument throw about the issue of people calling votes minutes before the 3:00 cutoff mark, with the intent of prolonging the round. This short intervention did not target Kingmatt, mention him by name, or even refer to the particular incident here, but rather to the problem caused by the voting setup as a whole. -At the same time, Kingmatt apologizes for starting the vote too early, which was accidental. -Some people begin to talk about the voting problem as a whole, while some other people (either believing Kingmatt to be targeted, or simply not wanting him to feel bad), try to explain that the conversation could be perceived as directed against him, and should be dropped. -I actually do stop talking about it at this point, because I didn't want to make Kingmatt uncomfortable (despite everyone understanding that it was an accident, sparking this kind of conversation can kinda suck for the person involved). -Shortly after that, I ask in OOC if we could start another vote, since the last one should technically have passed and didn't because of what was a timing mistake. No staff replies for a while. -Some users (among which most vocally 1138) begin to oppose the idea of another vote. I fail to understand what exactly is so bad about calling another vote, so we begin to argue back and fort for a little while. -Eventually, Scopes calls a vote. The vote doesn't pass, because at that point it's been ten minutes, and people started doing other stuff on the station. The only thing I can see could have been perceived as an outburst here was that I ended up asking two or three times (rather calmly) why people were against the idea of calling another vote, because 1. No one had clearly explained why they did not want another vote, simply stated they didn't, and 2. No staff was replying. I cannot think of any other incidents I have been involved in in OOC.

All I want is for people to link to complaints, logs, even player notes that prove such things, and that prove they happened recently. I believe at this point this is more of an impression being perpetuated against the player than anything else, because most users' complaints amount to "I feel like Ana has been bad before". Yes, said character got overly pissy about a minor thing, after having a very bad day. I see nothing wrong with that from an OOC perspective. Can you explain what OOC responsibility you believe Sue failed by having Ana act the way she did? The poster of the complaint made all of the security staff chase them for an extended period of time - to which Ana responded with one hit from a harmbaton (after the complainant tried to steal said baton, no less), and that hit turned into two due to clickspamming, which had the unfortunate effect of breaking the complainant's ribs. But I thought we had established that the force used here was not excessive.

I don't know about what happened with Mirk since I've been gone for a few months, but this thread is the direct result of me witnessing multiple incidents involving several people, not just Sue.

Can you be more precise about that? (Like, post logs, an explanation, anything.) I do not recall ever having an outburst in OOC that was not a total joke (and thus made for comedic effect).

We 100% need this. It doesn't make sense that security should be the only department immune to people being dicks, and making the regulation a general one solves two problems: security thinking they can brig people for "insulting the LAW", and people thinking security is literally Hitler. Good stuff.

Servers come and go, and I don't think any server will become popular exclusively through new players stumbling upon it on their first day playing SS13. This is perfectly expected imo. Even Bay got their original population by splitting from /tg/.

I do believe the reason why Sue has been allowed to continue engaging in her actions without punishment is because there is nothing wrong in what she did. (She has done wrong in the past, gotten notes over incidents where she stepped over the line, and will face stronger consequences - the same as everyone - if she displays excessive behavior. But that's not what happened here.) This is sort of the same as an angry player complaining staff is "out to get them" or "not cutting them any slack" because they constantly keep breaking rules. There's a relatively clear ruleset/design intent with the server. If you break it, you get punished. If you don't, you don't get punished. Simple as that. As for the suggestion to have administration filter player complaints, it was made by one person, who is not part of the moderation staff, so I would calm down about the conspiracy theory.

We need cold, hard facts, people. You simply can't say "X character constantly does this" and not actually present at least one instance of an incident. Because from where I'm standing this is a bad rep being perpetuated by the server hivemind, but is there actually any material to hold against Sue? It seems clear to me this complaint has been explained, and her actions sufficiently justified.

I liked doing it, and would be glad to do it again, if it's needed. However, I believe a new headmin will likely be promoted before I get a chance to. And I'm perfectly fine with that - there's a few excellent candidates to lead the staff right now.

No, no, no, this is wrong. The intent was not to kill people, but to provoke conflict. That could be anything, from the crew realizing that Stefan's body had been taken by the Vox, or trying to retrieve it, or to people actually finding the Vox and having a fight (which is what happened). But you cannot say the intent was to "pick off crew". We're looking at this from an OOC perspective, and while one of the possibilities of this was that a fight would happen (again, nothing wrong with that, antagonists are sort of about fighting, among other things), I think that the action posed here was complex enough that we can't dismiss it as an antag simply looking for more people to kill.

We can't please everyone. We simply need to lock down a direction, and for the sake of fairness, I would say the staff's responsibility is to stick as closely as they can to the original plan of what we promised Aurora to be. It's better to offer a clear and stable service than one constantly trying to change and adapt to what will end up being nothing but the most vocal group of people, in the end.

Yet you were still there as well, weren't you? I'm not trying to be hostile, but I don't understand what you find at fault here. The Vox could've taken chances, or simply assumed that since the incident happened in space, help would not be coming that fast or that efficiently. The way I see it, both of your characters made bad calls, ICly. Katana for heading out on a risky rescue mission (although it was honorable and I would've totally done the same thing to save my friend), and Sue's Vox (whatever may be her name) for coming back to retrieve the body. There was nothing wrong with the calls from an OOC perspective. The call to save Stefan obviously made sense, and the one by Sue to recover the body was actually made with the intent to spark more conflict - to which I'd say conflict was indeed sparked, in a way that was perfectly admissible. OOCly, you don't in fact recover a random body so you can sit with it alone in the Vox Skipjack at round end while doing nothing, you do it in the hope that it'll rile up the crew and cause some trouble.

What exactly are antags supposed to do, then? Both of these seem like fairly reasonable roleplaying scenarios, which are free to develop in a multitude of interesting ways. I feel like saying antags can't kidnap crew or severely sabotage the station heavily limits the amount of actions available to them.

Although only Sue can provide the specifics, there are a lot of possible reasons why the Vox would have been delayed in coming back to retrieve the body, ranging from lack of organization or support (Sue did say she was working alone) to outright incompetence. I will suggest that this particular Vox (and maybe by extension Sue) has simply not thought that other people would be coming back to the body's location at the exact same time she did, and was forced to defend herself when confronted with the (armed) friend of the person she had just shot and killed. Keep in mind this is in space, not in a crowded station hallway where it would have made far more sense to escape as fast as possible. Edit: I'm a bit confused by your post so I'm not sure if the point you're trying to make is that Stefan's body was left afterwards, but it's quite possible that after finding (and having to fight) more enemies at the zone where she was trying to recover the body, the Vox might've simply said "fuck this" and abandoned the task.

I'm only speaking as a player here, but, There's currently two complaints against Sue. There's also been a few more complaints recently, that many people have been vocal on. And the thing I've been noticing from all of them is that people actually seem to be opposing the idea that there should be conflict in this game, or that players should have a right to get involved in this conflict. I get that there's a reason why player complaints like these exist. Some people do gank, validhunt, whatever. But I believe we've stepped far past the boundary of solely stopping these people, and the actions of some of this community's members have turned into a witch-hunt to out anyone involved within conflict. As a player, I believe conflict is important. While understanding why validhunting, ganking, shitcurity/condoming are bad, I believe players have a right to create conflict of their own, and as much as we try to protect the liberties of everyone playing on the server, no one should actually expect to get their ideal and perfect scenario. Antags, and even regular characters, are not here to hold your hand. We should not have to play on a server where someone has to face an increasing number of complaints simply because they choose to play an antag role. We should not have to play on a server where hostages are basically free to do what they want, because they do not believe antags will shoot them out of a misdirected notion of "ruining roleplay" or ganking. We should not have to play on a server where a majority of players vote for a gamemode which is essentially based around two opposing factions shooting it up, then act surprised or outraged when people actually get into fights, instead of stealthing it up and running away at the first sight of a bald assistant. And I'm going to suggest the reason for this problem, from what I can see, is that people are taking the game too seriously. A majority of rounds last 2-3 hours at most. Death in the Aurora universe is non-canon (unless you choose for it to be), and so are antag rounds. In a game which is extremely slow-paced, based around playing hundreds and hundreds of rounds over weeks and months, I actually find myself really wishing people would get less upset because something went wrong once. And these are not even OOC incidents. These are IC events, which although they carry a negative IC connotation still contribute to creating interesting situations, and should not bleed out in OOC. If you want to oppose something from an OOC perspective, you can, but think about why you want to. Do not confuse your character's feelings for your own. Because I am seeing players being attacked because "their characters look mean" or "their characters did bad things", without attackers actually attempting to evaluate whether these actions constituted good roleplay or not.

I don't think Sue's out to hate anyone. (Though I think having player complaints made against you constantly has to take a toll on your patience past a point, even if most of them get thrown out, so I'd understand her behaving abrasively at times.) I don't see how you can perceive what Sue just posted as a personal attack, while ignoring the fact that she is trying to point out the very kind of behavior you are criticizing in her play is behavior you yourself have also extensively engaged in. (Well, putting aside the one outright negative incident you brought up, which I believe she provided a sufficient explanation for). And the thing are these things. Are. Not bad. Ex-space pirate? Sure. Roleplay can be about having cool characters, as long as they don't break immersion. Baddies that instigate conflict, or anyone who isn't your "run-of-the-mill" law-abiding employee can breathe some fresh air in an otherwise stale scene. And yes, you have perfectly the right to tell me that these characters should be held to a certain standard, and it is not their job to act like an outright dick every round, but I will reiterate by saying that nobody has succeeded in demonstrating that this is what happened here. I feel like certain people are demanding all members of sec act like perfectly flawless beacons of holy goodness, when in fact, this is more immersion-breaking than having them crack under the pressure from time to time, like every human being does. By actually judging people based on intelligent conclusions drawn from their actions, and not from pointless and insignificant rants or things they might have said in the past that might or might not have nothing to do with the way they actually decide to act?

I feel bad having to defend Sue every time a complaint against her comes up, but isn't this honestly an exaggeration? So Katana shows up, weapon in hand, in space, coming to the very location where one of his(her? idk, sorry) fellow engineers has just been killed after engaging a Vox in combat. Said Vox is still around, hoping to recover the body themselves, and sees a second engineer coming with a crossbow and unknown intent. Why exactly should that Vox not have attacked? I get that Katana was trying to look out for their buddy. It's in space, there's not much to do, it sucks. But there was already fighting back then (instigated by engineers, I might add), somebody got killed, and if you hang around in the same area while carrying weapons, chances are you're going to get shot too. I fail to see how Sue can be held responsible for this. What would you have her do, run away because "she might have to kill someone"? Are antags there to generate conflict, or act spooky without ever harming a soul?

I don't know why, but part of me wants to keep these separated. Like, being promoted to interim head isn't the same as joining as a head. OOCly, you don't come in expecting to have these responsibilities. So even if you're whitelisted, if you're being promoted ICly due to circumstances out of your control, it shouldn't be treated with the same level of harshness it would be if you willingly joined as a head. But at the same time, it's an IC issue here, and in IC logic Ana should be responsible as a head, so... I don't know, perhaps someone else can explain why I have that impression. But does that make any sense?

They don't have one? Let me just laugh at how sad that is. No, but, seriously I'm sorry IAAs. This is truly awful and idk who did this.