Frances

There is a way to create roleplay. You could argue griefers create roleplay, because 1. woah, a crazy person just blew themselves up, that's quite an event and 2. there's a huge hole through the station engineers now have to fix. However, people still find griefers horrid to deal with. Why? Firstly, it feels cheap. The situation created is unoriginal (a generic action scenario happened without context), and the person basically put no effort in making their act interesting or unique. Secondly, if the same thing happens over and over with no variation, it actually gets tiring. This is why ditching your teammates for no reason other than "hah fuck you" is pretty much a bad decision. If you provide good leadup throughout the round, get into meaningful arguments with your team, and actually create context for your action, I assure you you'll be much more appreciated for creating something memorable than you would be by simply moving the shuttle without warning.

I can 100% get behind Cassie, btw. If a HoP started forcing his or her officers to write detailed arrest reports for every little thing that happened during a round, security would spend more time writing forms in the brig than patrolling. Point is, they'd get chewed out by a large part of the community right away. What happened here is simply a minor form of this. We don't force people to register through the checkpoint because 1. It's sort of tedious (if only slightly) 2. It's not something we can enforce regularly (need somebody assigned to do it) 3. It's terribly boring for the person in charge of it 4. As a final nail in the coffin, it brings little to nothing interesting to the round Whenever an activity encompasses any of these first three characteristics, as well as characteristic #4, it is safe to say it's not an activity which players should be subjected to. In addition, one final weirdness is that due to the impossibility of securing a checkpoint volunteer every round, you shouldn't really make something a rule without good reason. So you have a situation where people expect to come in to work every morning without having to check in, and suddenly get in trouble for not doing so because we found somebody willing to do it for once. It just... seems weird. If you actually want to change a rule for a round, you're usually expected to have an in-round reason, say that you've been getting non-registered intruders coming through arrivals or whatnot. Requesting staff demand verbal (radio) permission is okay. Having people fill paperwork for any of these things is ridiculous.

You guys are missing the point again. We don't care about IC. We don't care about realism, or what people do in real-life. We don't care about how the specific instance here can be circumvented, or how annoying or not it is. We care about the specific instance existing. This thread, as far as I can see, what created to discuss a gameplay issue, which is that people shouldn't be forced into doing needless paperwork. Conversation should be focused on that, yet most of the posts I see are about how it's a minor issue, or that people do it irl, or idk what else.

Shouldn't people be able to roleplay assholes as long as it makes for fun and interesting situations? I would have no problems being double-crossed as long as it was thought out, and actually gave me a chance to react. I feel like you're applying a very black and white judgement to this.

Huh, that's not written anywhere that I know of. Shouldn't people be free to roleplay their antags with some extent of freedom? I mean, the only issue I could see is people being utterly stupid or constantly fighting in a way that impairs the ops to the point they can't get anything done. In which case, failure to RP, but if you wanna be a remorseless, backstabbing space pirate, and you actually roleplay it well (which doesn't seem to be what happened here), I don't see why not.

Whether this is good or not in context depends entirely on the execution. There's nothing wrong with the idea on paper - a fair bit of back-stabbing and double-crossing is always fun. However, I'd be curious to know why exactly people (well, at least one mod) were having issues with what you did. Were the team's objectives completed, and if so did you actually engage with the rest of the antags throughout your betrayal?

Feel free to call me out on this if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the vague impression that you might not have completely understood the reason behind your ban? You explained your offenses as if you were pretty dismissive of them, and passingly mentioning you "might've" been banned for deathsting abuse frankly makes it seem like you have no comprehension of why you're no longer allowed in antag roles. I haven't actually seen what went down, but it might be a good start if you began by owning up to what you did a little? Because going all "yeah I might've done this, whatever" doesn't inspire confidence that you won't engage in the same acts that got you banned again.

How much does the IC perspective matter, as long as it doesn't break any rules OOCly? If a player repeatedly keeps causing the death of other players through shitty decisions, that warrants staff investigation, but if a split-second decision while under stress results in the death of someone, is it really inadmissible? I actually think sec is being held to too high a standard, to some extent. People fuck up? Let them fuck up. If the mistake sounds like one a regular human being could reasonably commit, it should be dealt with ICly. My argument in this isn't that Sue did the right thing or not, but that the situation was gray enough that no matter who was in the right, no players should go punished for what happened.

Butting in once again for two points. 1. Sue was the detective, and as such only had the revolver at her disposition (as well as a flash that doesn't work against a hardsuit). Since the detective is not supposed to carry less-than-lethal equipment anyway, she did the best she could given the situation. 2. The situation was one where Sue's character held a strong suspicion the suspect was a murderer, and after being warned force would be used against him, the suspect attempted to escape, which led to the only available force being used. This is hardly the same as security shooting anyone to death the moment they refuse to heed orders. What would you suggest Sue should have done, and what would have been an acceptable IC reasoning for doing so? What made her reasoning unacceptable, ICly?

Whoops. My bad on that, I didn't think this through. That actually changes things a bit, though idk to which point. It's still safe to assume that he would've hit something at some point, being in an asteroid belt. Still looks like the call was made because of the /chance/ he might get away. Not executing someone. Using lethal force with no available alternative to disable a fleeing suspect. This is where I'm going to agree. When I spoke to Sue and encouraged her to make this complaint, there is one detail she left out, which was the extent of the force that was used against Imraj. I'm not even going to look at it from an IC perspective, because OOCly, all players have a responsibility to not go apeshit when fighting with lethals. A few shots would've accomplished the same job of disabling the suspect without killing them right away, while still drastically reducing their chances at escape (you're going to get as far bleeding out outside a space station as you are inside of one). You wouldn't empty an entire clip into a fleeing suspect in a hallway after seeing several of your shots connect, so it's not really any better to do it here. I would like to hear Sue's defense on that, although I'm willing to take a guess it has to do with security "letting antags get away on purpose". To which I'll reply by asking whether we are playing to create an interesting narrative, or a believable one. There seems to be a line between believable and fun actions (which is the reason why we disallow "silent hitmen" type antags, although they might make the most sense ICly), and the crux of this issue remains to find out where on that line Sue's decision stood. Edit: Sue ninja'd my post, but my question still stands. She elaborated a bit on what gave her IC justification to kill Imraj, but I would like to discuss the OOC side of such a playstyle, as it seems the main difference between shooting someone with lethals a few times and shooting them a bunch is that it takes them out of the round.

Gonna bring a few points into this in an attempt to keep focus. 1. @Conspire2Ignite, I know Sue can come off as abrasive generally, but she hasn't expressed any directed anger or frustration against you here, and I don't think she has something against you personally. Keep in mind admin complaints exist for whenever someone has a disagreement with a staff decision; this does not imply that they need to be about fighting, or pissed off users or staff. I simply think the attempt here is to bring light to the way staff are trying to direct roleplay on the server. 2. We can 100% assume the attempt was to kill Imraj by using lethal force. The number of shots use or the targeted body part are irrelevant, as they only serve to prove Sue's objective was to kill. 3. The question here is whether Sue was justified in killing her target or not. 4. Both in universe and OOC, it would be safe to assume that a person drifting off from a large object would be able to affect their momentum to drift back towards said object once they had slipped the cuffs (by throwing them away, for example). 5. Is it admissible, both ICly and OOCly, for a person to make the split-second decision of executing someone they know or strongly suspect to be a murderer rather than letting them escape? 6. Should players be punished for, or asked OOCly to avoid making such a decision?

Something to note is that the most enjoyable characters (for others) might not be the most realistic or average ones, but the ones that act in the most entertaining or unique manner. All the "good" SS13 characters I remember have been unique in some way. I remember Crane because he's a fucking dick. I remember Imraj because he does incredibly funny shit that doesn't 100% makes sense sometimes (and isn't a pretty, white young adult). I remember Haruspex for its unique method of speech, and I remember Phoebe for being so over the top in her selective aggression it wasn't even funny. (No, but seriously, it was actually ridiculous. But she still deserves a mention). I don't remember "average" characters. They don't bother me, but I won't remember everyone with a dark, convoluted past, because if you want someone to appreciate your characters, you have to make them relatable and noticeable in some way. And the best characters push their "uniqueness" in a way that's funny, enjoyable, touching, or just believable. Don't go over the top, but for god's sake, do something.

The good: -It's a high-action round on a heavy-RP server, providing a nice change of pace -It gives me a chance to put my characters in highly stressful or dramatic situations (I actually mean civilians/station staff, I never got to play as an operative sadly) -The focus on antag teamplay sounds fun The bad: -Lots of people seem to neglect or forego the teamplay aspect of nuke antagging to a degree -People misunderstand nuke for something it's not: the chaos, explosions and killing are part of the round - it's short and fast-paced, so dying /should/ be an expected risk and should not be made as big of a deal as it is now -If you don't like it don't play it, nuke is obviously enjoyed enough if it gets voted into the rotation regularly

This is mostly directed at Viktor Kaipov's player, although it concerns everyone going the extra mile in violence/IC shittery because their characters are upset, angry, unstable, etc. You can actually do cool things as long as you ask consent. It sucks when both antags and regular players lose their shit at everything and robust everyone, but if you think it might result in something cool in a certain situation, there is nothing wrong with trying to clear it in LOOC with the involved party. Not everyone may reply positively, but I know at least a few people would be glad to have their characters beaten, abused or executed for the cool factor and to advance the round.

I think the case of citing real-life laws can help serve as an example of what kind of behavior is generally seen as acceptable or called for in situations where no in-game law or rule exists. Of course, the law has to make relative sense, both in-universe and for roleplay/fairness. Corporate regs and SOP are exhaustive, but not that much so. Since there's little said about this specific situation in the in-game laws, referring to real-life law can be an effective guideline, as long as the law makes sense and doesn't directly go against the spirit of the game or any RP rules.

See, while I know that killings should generally be avoided in a reasonable effort to keep people in the round, there are some circumstances where it 100% makes sense to use lethal force on a suspect. Let's look at the situation Sue described. 1. The killed character was the principal suspect in a murder case, with strong evidence against him, and was attempting to escape. 2. The suspect had a reasonable chance at escaping (getting vented into space with a hardsuit, no sec personnel around). 3. Only lethal force was available (detective doesn't have a taser, only revolver). Given all of this, do you still think it wasn't appropriate to use lethal force against Imraj? If not, what do you think should have been the appropriate course of action, and why?

You have to keep in mind how easy it is to get your lung ruptured in the Aurora universe when balancing those things. Paincrit is finicky, but overall injuries give you a chance at remaining relatively active, even through things such as being shot repeatedly or shocked, because from a gameplay perspective it's often more fun than having the patient/victim immediately go in shock and become powerless. The thing with ruptured lungs is that I remember rupturing one because I forgot to switch on my oxygen while going EVA and took oxy damage for about 2 seconds. (Yes, explosive decompression can be a thing, but I had a mask and hardsuit on, plus the pressure drop was the gradual one you get in an airlock). And since (if I recall correctly) any sort of robusting to the chest area will have a strong tendency to create ruptured lungs (they are /the/ most common surgical condition I ever saw in medbay, by far), your lungs should probably not get BTFO whenever anything so nearly as touches them. That's an exercise in frustration, not realism.

I don't see how game balance really fits into this discussion. None of the races really get a distinctly strong advantage mechanics-wise, even less so on a RP server (where combat tends to be more controlled). As for lore, I think the old lore was lame, but could have been rewritten in a way that still marginalized Tajarans a lot more without making them Khajiit expys. I also think the current lore is pretty cool, because it's actually original. The main debate to be had (as it usually comes up) is on player freedom vs restrictions to create a cohesive universe. Tajaran heads let Tajaran players experience with more possibilities in positions, personalities, etc. Basically, you're free to create a more diverse character, and aren't "forced" in a specific playstyle (a la "all Tajarans must be submissive and speak in third person" that was once a staple of Bay). The caveat to this is that certain people will behave like idiots, and you can only limit them so much, because freedom of expression, yo. And in my experience Aurora has always been a "free-er" RP server in that sense, where we let players do what's fun above enforcing blanket policies to curb whatever bad behaviors rise up. So the upside is you're a little bit more free to do whatever you want with your Tajaran characters. The downside is that so are dumb people with terrible RP ideas.

Heya all. The people I picked to handle applications (Tishina and Dea), I not only picked for their strong affinity with common sense, but also for a certain ability to self-moderate, and recognize when they have legitimate grounds to oppose something vs when they're holding a grudge (and in the latter, I trusted them to know how to handle the situation appropriately). Nobody is perfect, /but/ I think we're all trying our best here. I don't know inverted_rectum much, but I remember them (him? her?) both for their amazing creative abilities, and for their strong and focused desire to make themselves heard and set things straight on the forums. And as such I do believe their intentions are fully genuine and not bullshit, although they may at this point be clouded behind several layers of exasperation. So I'll come out and say this: I don't think anyone's trying to pick up a fight. I see miscommunications, and arguments that have been both heated and drawn out coming back up here. But that doesn't mean anyone is here to shit on anyone, and reading everybody's posts I can clearly see that this is more an issue of information being lost or misunderstood than anything else. Yes, it would be cool to see a whitelist app being approved, but can we see it be done without everyone being so on the defensive and at each other's throats? I don't think Dea/Tish are out to get IR, or that IR is out to get the staff/server pop.

Waiting for the round to start isn't always an optimal solution, because you miss out on antag roles, risk losing your job slot, and there always need to be a minimum of people readying up for most roundtypes to begin. This is a change that I could certainly see as beneficial. Is it something that's needed urgently? I don't know. But while I understand that certain coders might simply not be interested in coding it, it is definitely something worthwhile to look into, if there's any interest.

Everyone's intent (both staff and involved players) to keep the moderator's name under wraps makes it look like some big blunder that shouldn't be outed publicly. And I really don't think it is. Like, I think there's been so much buildup around that (when there shouldn't have been any) that you might as well not mention the moderator any further or get them involved, only for their sake. But it's not something that calls for punishment, in my mind. I've moderated, I've done calls that were wrong, but there was never any malice or neglect behind it. Sometimes an idea sounds good in your mind, and after reevaluation you find out it wasn't, or others don't think it was (even if you might). So you talk it out, clear things up, and you're done. Doesn't take more than five minutes. And I feel sorry that someone is seemingly being thrown under the bus here instead of having that.

I'll try to rephrase what I think I understand Chaz's point is. The player in question had the courtesy of clearing his actions in advance with a moderator, and was given permission to proceed. Now that we know that, it wouldn't really be fair to pursue a player complaint, because the player stuck closely to the permission they were granted, and as such should not be blamed for doing something they were allowed to do by staff. Most participants in this discussion seem to be opposed to the idea of the action itself, not this specific instance. This should thus be discussed either as a rule change/clarification, or code change. I personally have no problem with wrapping things up in this very thread, but if some people feel like a new thread might be best to discuss this, I don't see the harm in it. PS: I can see very well how this is a debatable idea, and don't think anybody should be blamed for it, as there's no well-known precedent. In fact, it'd be nice to see the involved mod join the discussion to hear what they have to say, if they have not done so already.

The vacant office is fun, though. It's a semi-abandoned place, which isn't the construction area, and is great for organizing shenanigans, from kill rooms to resistance headquarters or black markets. Seeing it go would be a shame.

We're not East Germany either, though. I doubt the staff will have to face a horde of imitators because people are sharing a few amusing grief stories. On that note, the banlist for Aurora is absolutely hilarious at times, and I really regret not saving a copy before leaving. Two griefers that always stuck with me are players who joined with the names "HardDong HugeStick" and "Longus McSchlongus". I also had someone blame me for their divorce after having told them a naughty word in the process of banning them, through a complete, convoluted 3000+ words narrative which somehow involved the Vietnam war. I personally love when people get creative like that. I mean, they get banned anyway, but they always brightened my day a little.

That's playing to win. People like that can be ahelped about, and these behaviors should be curbed.