Zulu0009

I feel there is a consistent and frustrating lack of consideration for any of the issues I raise, and I do not believe that just being told what I was already told before is a satisfactory answer. You have cleared the issue of conflict of interest between OOC issues and whitelist issues, as confusing and undetermined as these parameters seem by your description. I am not sure why it can be decided to just not pursue something as an OOC issue. While yes, sure, even if I had received a punishment for it, the removal would have been considered, I am certain that the SLT would have taken into account any warnings or bans related to it, and would have thought twice about twisting the knife in the wound by also stripping the whitelist. In fact, it feels like a direct decision not to pursue administrative action, in order to "give way" to the SLT to have full control over the issue. The implications of this are frightening, and I would like to know why the decision was taken not to pursue administrative action, and when. What led the staff to decide that behavior inching upon NSFW was not an OOC issue, and what is their justification for it? From a different point of view, then, why was I not punished whatsoever for that kind of behavior, when someone else may have been warned or even banned for it? I am sure you see how this specific lack of action in my case can be used by another user to accuse the staff team of incongruence. But regardless, the question of bad faith has not been answered, and I refuse to move on without it being acknowledged. The behavior that Lancer exhibited is unacceptable, and one additional incident occurred just today, as seen below. In response to my message simply asking if we could talk about the issue, since I believed it would be more productive to do so directly, Lancer replied two days after, specifically telling me that it would just not be productive to talk. If not just a bit rude, this response seems outright aggressive, as if hinting that a discussion between Lancer and I will simply never happen because I cannot talk to him appropriately. That felt like the intention behind their message. A question arises, then, and I would like an answer: why does the SLT refuse to speak to players? Why are they deathly afraid of messaging a player and talking to them about an issue? Why do they believe that behavior such as the one exhibited against me should be the norm? Surely it would only be more beneficial towards everyone, the SLT, the players and the non-whitelisted players, if the SLT took some of their time to just DM someone and say "hey, could we talk about this and that"? Going back to bad faith and poor conduct, I also remark that upholding this judgment even with all the mistakes I have exposed in great detail seems like an outright biased decision. I have explained how the SLT's warnings to me were unclear, how they failed to communicate with me before this, how the Head of the Synthetic Lore Team behaved poorly, yet the only note that has been made about the overwhelming amount of evidence against the SLT is that warnings will be clearer in the future. While that is a step in the right direction, it is not nearly enough positive action to outweigh the negative (a throwback to Caelphon's own words). I am not seeking absolute immunity from this, and as I have stated I would rather be warned or banned, I am just pointing out that this is unfair towards players and sets a scary precedent: if the staff can make so many mistakes and still uphold their judgment, what's stopping them from lying or enforcing biased punishments? Once again, I feel like my complaints do not get read nearly enough. I do not understand how it is acceptable for a staff member, let alone a staff team, to accuse me of partaking in sex-bot cliché while I specifically, outright, directly deny this claim and have continuously stated that this was an isolated incident. If the screenshot is all the evidence against me, I find it frankly baffling that it is enough to construct this image of a sex-bot cliché and that I am partaking in it. In addition, I refuse to keep into consideration the strip-tease thing: it happened in November 2021, and I have explained, and the SLT agrees, that the warning I was issued for the incident was poorly worded. The case made against me is weak and poorly constructed, in addition to the poor behavior used in constructing it. It has been five months since the striptease incident. Would the staff team accuse someone of self-antag behavior if they had an incident regarding it six months before? While the justification that sexual behavior for IPCs is unacceptable and is enforced harshly is understandable, the enforcement of this rule, in this case, has been lackluster and below standard. Why did it take two complaints and thirteen replies to reach this conclusion, if that was the main issue? But even putting all of this aside, I have several questions: 1. What took the SLT so long to tell me that the issue was a sex-bot cliché, and why did you have to tell me? 2. Why didn't the SLT inform me that they thought I was playing into this cliché and give me a chance to explain myself? 3. What took the SLT so long since the incident, almost two weeks ago now, to bring it up? Was it reported afterwards? 4. Just who reported this? Why did they wait this long, or why did the team wait this long? Overall, I find it ridiculous that what is very clearly a joke is being considered as something quite honestly insulting: accusing me of partaking in a sex-bot cliché. As stated several times, it is disrespectful and unacceptable that the SLT believes I am responsible for such behavior, even after directly explaining, over very lengthy and detailed posts, that this is clearly a misunderstanding and has been elevated to an incredible severity by the team, a severity that has not been respected in any way by the staff members who spoke to me. Let us list the mistakes by me, and the SLT. By Zulu: - performing an emote that inches on NSFW behavior. By the SLT: - reviewing such a supposedly egregious case almost two weeks after it happened, - failing time and time again to explain directly what the reason for the whitelist removal was, - exhibiting unconstructive and rude behavior in a staff complaint, such as not reading it, - accusing a player of partaking in a sex-bot cliché despite their intentions being otherwise, - refusing to speak to me whatsoever about this incident and even responding rudely, - failing to word their warnings in a clear and concise way to make them sound like warnings, - still using those warnings as actual evidence against me despite agreeing on their uncertainty, - only reaching the final reason for my whitelist removal after a lengthy staff complaint and involving a Head Administrator. I would like you, Arrow, in all honesty, to tell me if this is acceptable behavior and all of this should be ignored in order to justify upholding my removal. This should not be the standard for the staff team. I cannot stress enough how disappointing it is that my punishment is being judged as valid after all the discrepancies, mistakes and downright insulting behavior I have exposed from the SLT and Lancer more so. If I had not opened a staff complaint, the reason for my whitelist removal would still be bypassing an IC charge (incorrect claim) and the dress joke, not this supposed sex-bot cliché I am subconsciously taking part in. In my time playing IPC, I have only enhanced the rounds I have played in for everyone, you can ask any player who has interacted with Mobius, this sex-bot and they will confirm it. The fact that despite having only improved the quality of roleplay on Aurora, I am being removed from my place and accused of partaking in NSFW behavior, is absolutely unacceptable. Since, as Caelphon stated to me, negative action often outweighs positive action, the SLT's decision to remove my whitelist despite all the evidence against them is not enough of a positive action to justify their mistakes. Action should be taken against Lancer regarding their behavior, and the many mistakes and faults that the SLT has exhibited should be taken into consideration before upholding this removal under the banner of a blind crusade against "sex-bots," a crusade which seems to target anyone without consideration or discussion. The enforcement of something this severe should not be performed with a sword, but with a scalpel. Instead, in this case, it was enforced with a sledgehammer. My whitelist was removed using incorrect information, undiscussed issues and invalid warnings, and just reaching the final removal reason took days. Once again, Arrow, how can you seriously support such a decision, with all the evidence I keep bringing forward and the lack of evidence the SLT has? Is this the standard for administrative action you wish to uphold?

BYOND Key: Zulu0009 Staff BYOND Key: Lancer, Caelphon Reason for complaint: Round two, I suppose. The staff complaint against Lancer did not go well. I feel that my explanations for why the whitelist removal is unfair and based on mistakes and misunderstandings were ignored or not taken into account, and the removal was upheld with insufficient evidence and unsatisfactory justifications. In fact, I was not specifically told what the reason was, in one clear and concise sentence, aside from one last post by Caelphon. I will, once again, go into great detail as to why the previous staff complaint was handled below standard and why I believe this removal is still unfair. However, I will still admit that I am satisfied with the fact that the SLT recognizes some mistakes were made, even if that is not enough to warrant this, and hope that the issues brought up will be considered in the future. For reference, I have linked the previous complaint and the Detective IPC character complaint, which proves that the Detective's charge was not canon, in the evidence. Section 1: Conflict of Interest From what I can understand, the removal of the whitelist is based on the so-called "sexual objectification" of a character that has been, supposedly, a trend. Regardless of how egregious this claim is, as it is imposing something on a character that is not intended (Mobius is not sexualized and never will be, this is non-negotiable, see Section 3) it conflicts with actual administrative action. If this incident with the dress we keep talking about was so severe, why was the solution a whitelist strip and not an administrative action? Clearly, I must have broken a rule if it was so severe to warrant immediate removal of my whitelist. So why am I still untouched when it comes to administrative warnings? Once again, as stated in my previous complaint, it paints the picture that I can break a rule, a serious one at that, and walk away scot-free because, well, I had a whitelist, so they just removed that. Not only does the removal lessen the impact of what this severe and intolerable action supposedly was, but it makes any real punishment, be it a warning or a ban, seem insignificant. I would rather face administrative action for the dress than this. It is simply more fair and just for everyone involved, and it does not render staff decisions less important than lore team decisions. To furthermore support this point, I find that the removal of the whitelist and the reasons given for it do not align with what the rules for whitelist removal actually are. I quote: if the quality of roleplay a whitelisted player engages in is contradictory to the lore of the whitelisted race, or demonstrates a lack of understanding for the whitelisted race’s lore, their whitelist may be stripped. Once again, there is no indication that a whitelist may be stripped for rule-breaking behavior, and the only case in which that is considered and explicitly stated is the AI whitelist. While a following sentence states that for conduct which is especially egregious, a whitelist may be stripped without prior warning, one is led to believe that this is enclosed within quality of roleplay and understanding of the lore and not behavior that is encompassed within server rules. I would expect to have my whitelist stripped without warning if I made a Hephaestus untagged IPC from Dominia and told everyone I met, then ahelped when I was shot, not for conduct that breaks the server rules and which is to be handled by the administration team. I repeat: I would rather face administrative action for the dress than this. If anything, one could argue that the SLT overstepped their boundaries by enforcing a makeshift punishment for something that broke a rule, when it was clearly something that an administrator should have gotten involved with in the first place. Section 2: Bad Conduct The previous complaint was handled poorly. Most everyone who I have spoken to seems to agree, friends or not, that it could and should have been handled more efficiently and respectfully. Whilst Caelphon seems to have at least made an attempt at justifying their actions, Lancer did not, and in fact, exhibited disrespectful and unconstructive behavior by not reading the complaint and replies. How do I know that the complaint was not read by the main staff member it was addressed to? In my initial post, I fully debunk why the Detective situation was an attempt at bypassing an IC punishment, and in the following replies I provide evidence and further disprove it. However, in Lancer's first and only reply to the post, he simply explains why I made the character of CSSU 33 to bypass a sedition charge on CSSU 32. First of all, the charge was mutiny, which leads me to believe wholeheartedly that if he had read the post he would've learned this fact. The fact that Lancer, despite being Head of CCIA and having access to the specific round when that charge happened, did not confirm or double-check their claims before submitting them, only reinforced my position in the complaint. But once again, referring back to Section 1: why was that not handled by an administrator? If the SLT believes that I created a character to bypass a charge on another, that is clear rule-breaking behavior, so why was an administrator not contacted and why was I not asked to explain myself when it happened? Why is that (factually incorrect) incident being used as fuel to justify my removal if it was a matter of breaking the rules and not Synthetic roleplay and lore understanding? I am not satisfied with the fact that the Head of the Synthetic Lore Team and Head of CCIA did not take my staff complaint seriously: it paints a picture that staff complaints are not worth opening, since they won't be taken as seriously as they should by the ones involved. I am certain that was not the intent, but it looks like it. Furthermore, I do not actually believe that Lancer involved the SLT in this decision, and if he did, their inputs may not have been taken into account. Though my justification for this is not very strong, I find it noteworthy enough to mention. Yesterday, I spoke to Stryker about this, and two things seemed to stand out to me. Firstly, their explanation of the Detective situation was not actually the bypassing of an IC punishment, but in fact, "the general lack of deference to authority that should be displayed by an IPC" in their own words. This leads me to believe that Stryker either knew about the supposed bypassing and assumed it was illegitimate, or did not. Both of these possibilities are equally condemning. If Stryker was aware that CSSU 33 was a supposed way for me to bypass a mutiny charge, then they would have told me outright that it was a notable incident leading to this removal, unless they assumed it was not to be considered since the charge was during an antag round. If Stryker was not aware of this, just a few hours before Lancer's response, then I am to assume that Stryker had not been informed of it until yesterday. I highlighted the word mutiny because I told Stryker what the charge was. Stryker was aware of what CSSU 32's charge was, and if Lancer still did not know by the time he posted his response, then either he forgot or didn't think it through, or did not actually consult with his team. Again, both possibilities are equally condemning: either Lancer did not put real effort into the response to my complaint (which I have actually proven just at the start of this Section), or Lancer did not speak with his team. On a final note, I find it to be unfair and unacceptable that despite disproving what was arguably half of the reasoning for my ban, proving that the warnings I was issued were unclear and not understandable enough, and reporting, to the Head of the Lore Teams, the poor behavior of the staff member directly being questioned in the complaint, my whitelist removal is being upheld for reasons that are unrelated to Synthetic roleplay altogether and fit more with OOC behavior, server rules and administrative action. Section 3: The Justification The SLT - the Head of the Lore Teams altogether, in fact - upheld the removal by stating that the character is being pictured as sexually objectified and thus, that is enough to warrant the whitelist strip. This reasoning seems flawed from the beginning. I do not see why or how a staff member or staff team can decide that something a player has done had a specific intention, even when that player specifically explains that it was not the intention they had. If this is the case, it sets the precedent that any statement by a user can be misconstrued as something it is not and the user can be punished for it. I do not assume this is the way the staff team operates, and would rather think this is an isolated incident. This is related to Section 1, and the question still remains about why I was not warned or provided with any administrative actions for any of these incidents, as severe and unacceptable as they were. Why did the SLT wait and let them pile up over a year instead of asking an administrator to punish me for them immediately? To further explain this supposed "sexual objectification," I find two flaws within this as the main reason of a whitelist removal: 1. as previously explained in depth, this is not a Synthetic roleplay issue, but rather an OOC issue, 2. the assumption that the emotes or events performed by me are sexual in nature is wrong, as there was clearly no sexual intent. I have already explained number one in great lengths, but let us delve into number two, which is admittedly an uncomfortable place to go. The strip-tease incident, firstly, was actually instigated by some players present, and was comedic in nature, with jokes spurred throughout. Though some characters were against it, it was not treated as a serious example of breaking the rules, otherwise an ahelp would have been submitted or an administrator would have stepped in and stopped the scene, and I would have been spoken to or warned by them there and then. Instead, that incident led to a warning by an SLT member, which has since been proven to be not clear enough. A point arises here, then: at the time, I was fully unaware that the incident had been noted as a warning, and did not know until yesterday that it had been considered as evidence for my whitelist removal. I feel I need not explain why this is an unfair and poor way to enforce warnings. To my knowledge, I did not have any warnings, because they were not clear enough, as such, they should not have been used as evidence against me, or if they had been, their severity should have been lessened: this was not done, however, and these ill-submitted and, frankly, invalid warnings were still used as fuel for the fire of my whitelist strip. Regarding this damned dress, I have concerns about the validity of this, too. Firstly, there were around five people present at the time. One was me, one was the person who complained to me about the incident in my DMs (who, for the record, did not submit a report, as stated directly by them), and one was another character who I know did not find a great issue in it. This leads me to believe that this report was issued by one of the two-three people still there, but the report itself seems to lack any details. As aforementioned, Lancer did not read my initial complaint, otherwise he would have seen that I included the full emote. I will do so again: "Mobius' dress rides up slightly and it pulls it down, then it remembers it's a Synthetic." I do not see how this emote is sexual in nature. Sure, it is unnecessary, and I should not have performed it, but I would be hard-pressed to find someone who genuinely believes the intent of this emote was... what? To paint Mobius in a sexual light? To entice NSFW behavior? What exactly is the claim with this emote? I did not intend for it to be sexual, it is not sexual, and it is confusing that it is being taken as such. I also find it disappointing - insulting, even - that the SLT would imply that I do not know the rules and that I am not aware that NSFW behavior and ERP are not allowed, or even that the SLT thinks that this character is sexual in nature or sexually objectified. If not rude, this directly breaches entry one of the Code of Conduct by accusing me, disrespectfully, that I am notable for erotic behavior with this character. I find this assumption to be unacceptable. If that was not the SLT's intent, then it certainly has those undertones. I think you can see what I am hinting at with that last sentence: it is frustrating and disrespectful to assume someone's intention despite their specific declaration that the intention was different. It is doubly so, when this assumption is used as way to punish someone, by a staff member who is in a higher position than the player. In my opinion, a staff member should be careful when taking these assumptions, and this care is not being exercised here. Evidence/logs/etc.: The previous complaint: https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17436-staff-complaint-lancer/ The character complaint regarding the Detective: https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/17338-120-seconds-to-mutiny-zulus-half-complaint-about-end-of-round-chaos/ The conversation with Stryker. I must remark that being assured an application will be given a "fair read" is not nearly as assuring as Stryker may have thought it sounded like. The message by the player stating that they did not make a report about the dress, left anonymous for their privacy. Additional remarks: N/A

I find it strange that administrative action is wielded depending on what the lore team feels I did, and not what I did and what the intentions behind that action were, and furthermore I find it unsatisfactory that a punishment so severe as a whitelist removal is being justified with the quoted sentence. I will wait for the decision, but must highlight the poor handling of this complaint and the inconsistencies within the replies.

I apologize for posting right away again, but I must highlight two further points relating to this forsaken dress: if this is such a severe and egregious action, why is the punishment a whitelist removal and not a general ban or a warning? Is it because a Synthetic specifically did it? If that was the case, it would make it seem as if people with a whitelist get a free out of jail card for rule-breaking behavior since their whitelist acts as a "shield" preventing actual punishment. In addition, and my second point, why is the dress being brought up now, almost two weeks since it happened? How many people reported the incident? I have spoken at length to one of them, and only three or four were there, three of which were myself, another person I know who was fine with it, and the one who messaged me with their complaint.

I would appreciate it if my complaint could actually be read before commenting. 32 was not charged with sedition. The charge happened during an antag round, directly as a result of an antag's actions, and directly relating to an antagonist. I have said this already and I am confused as to why it has not been taken into consideration. 32 was charged with mutiny because of a Head of Security's belief that they were working with an antagonist. That means that the charge was null and void and never happened. The reason I made 33, the supposed second version, was because 32 had been, in fact, too inappropriate, so the justification for this new character was that a crew member had reported the IPC's behavior, and its positronic had been wiped to repurpose into another IPC, which, by the way, only shared the name and the fact that it was a Baseline frame; the rest was entirely different, and it was, in fact, a new character. I have explained all of this in a player complaint against the Head of Security which follows. While the charge was deemed justified in the context of the round, it was not canon. While I will agree that the emote was unnecessary, I fervently disagree that it was sexual in nature. I am not stupid, frankly. I know that NSFW content is not allowed, and I would not have performed an emote with sexual undertones. It was a joke, a comedic emote, which was received poorly and for which I have apologized. Once again, I feel like my original complaint has not been read by everyone involved. Furthermore, if you did not remember that I had been talked to before about this behavior, I am to assume that this whitelist removal was entirely based on the dress joke and the Detective situation. I have already explained why one of them is outright wrong and a misunderstanding, and have also explained why the dress seems to be another, much greater misunderstanding.

I cannot stress enough how much these do not sound like warnings. If they were, in fact, official, Synthetic Lore Team warnings, as in "Hey, this is strike one and if you do this again you might lose your whitelist," I would have appreciated hearing those exact words. The way Kyres worded their messages to me made it seem like the incident had been cleared up and there was no issue, which is exactly why I had not considered it as one. The way Lancer worded their messages to me made it seem like the incident was a minor mistake and I should just keep a closer eye on how I write IPCs. I don't think I should be expected to decipher these messages to try and understand if they are an official administrative action or advice, since I fully expect to be sent advice my way when playing an IPC, be it from a lore writer or a player. In particular Lancer's message was, in its whole, eight words spoken to me plus a screenshot. I do not understand how these messages can be considered warnings and be upheld as warnings, and I stand by my belief that these messages need to be clearer. In fact, you said it yourself. Kyres spoke to me. Lancer spoke to me. They did not warn me. They did not strike me. They spoke to me and I took it as exactly that: a talk from a lore deputy to a player. I don't assume I am always expected to be afraid of staff members when they message me and assume that every time they talk to me it means an administrative action is coming my way. Perhaps it should be existent across the board, then. Character interactions and relations should not be kept on indefinite hold because of a sudden whitelist removal, perhaps deep into a character arc or halfway through something important. What I am asking and have asked is just more communication with the players, because what happened to me is that I was messaged out of nowhere on a random morning and my whitelist was immediately stripped. It just feels rude, if I'm being honest, to suddenly have your characters ripped away and being told that the only option to get them back is to launch a staff complaint which is likely to take days to solve and very likely to result in your whitelist removal being upheld. I have to disagree on this one. If only parties involved can comment on the issue, and so far none have, I don't see why a DM between all parties involved wouldn't instead be quicker and simpler. Again, it would probably bring a quicker end to this instead of the carrier pigeon back-and-forth that is this complaint. I would very happily agree to a group DM, even, with the entire team, with whoever would be appropriate. And I must also note that this detachment from directly speaking to the staff and being pushed onto the forums for any discussion only enhances the possible animosity between the players and the staff. I am not asking for the moon, really, I am just asking to talk more directly: there is no issue of transparency here, since the messages would stay there and provide indefinite logs and evidence, just like this complaint. It definitely seems to me that the forum is preferred to a conversation with users, for some reason. Not without some dismay that it feels like none of my points have so far been acknowledged or considered, I will wait until Lancer can make theirs.

Yes, this happened in November of 2021, and is part of the reason I stopped playing for several months. I have rectified that mistake, retconned it and some time on the Aurora, and pondered on it enough; in addition, it was not mentioned by Lancer whatsoever, leading me to believe that it had been left in the past, where it should have been. Actually, since we must bring it up, I was questioned about it when it happened by @kyres1, who cleared it and advised me not to do things of that sort again; I did not assume that this would have been kept on the record since it was cleared and it happened so long ago. It is an incident I am ashamed of and I have to say I do not love that it was brought up again. I apologize for quoting Kyres without permission, but it seems to be necessary to defend myself. I also do not love the accusation that I have a pattern of questionable roleplay solely based on two incidents, one of which happened last year, and one of which happened two weeks ago by now. If we are to quote the SLT rules: warnings should be issued prior to stripping a whitelist to allow for correction in their behavior. I can only note one warning since I resumed playing at the start of July, and the issue which caused in that warning has been extensively rectified. As such, I most definitely believe the rules were not followed: I was not given a warning that my whitelist may be stripped. And if the incident mentioned is to be taken into account, and is considered the warning, the team should use clearer wording than "you should tone it down" to indicate an official whitelist removal warning, given the severity of such message. I am not sure I can fully accept that, as aforementioned, two or three instances of questionable roleplay, of which all three have been cleared and for which I have taken steps to prevent them, make up enough negative action to outweigh the positive action I have brought forward. I have mentioned several positive interactions in the original complaint which I fully believe outweigh the incidents, which, once again, I myself have taken steps to correct. I did not defend these incidents. I did not wait for a staff member. I decided to reset and mindwipe C.S.S.U. 32 since it had been way too rude to its colleagues, and too human, and I decided to delete C.S.S.U. 33 when I realized the implications that I was avoiding administrative actions that the character presented. I spoke to the person who messaged me, apologized, made the dress thing non-canon, and we came to an agreement. I do not know who persons is and would rather prefer a list of the complaints against me (anonymous, of course) so I may have a chance to explain myself - Mobius has been quite antagonistic against certain characters, and I feel that may have slipped Out Of Character into people thinking I have a grudge against them. Still, I would be open to seeing what these complaints are, since perhaps some may be unfounded or unexplained. I believe it is only fair that my side is heard. I understand the SLT rules, however, I would like an explanation as to why the incident about the dress is the main justification I have been given by two members of the team regarding why my whitelist is being stripped. As bad as the joke was, did it breach a server rule? Why was it specifically related to the SLT and my whitelist, and why was it not considered as an administrative action instead, like a warning or even a tempban? What makes that specific incident the deciding factor in removing my whitelist, despite the explanations I have provided? Relating to the “warning” Lancer gave me, I had not considered it a warning. The wording Lancer used made the message seem like more of a whack on the knuckles about an instance of questionable character interactions (truthfully I still think it was a bad example of a bad character, I have seen plenty of IPCs utter similar sentences as in the screenshot). In the future, I think it may be prudent to use clearer wording for an action as severe as a warning that can affect a whitelist status. As I mention further below in this response, I plan to post a policy change thread, and this clearer wording will be included. But going forward, I am not sure what the behavior mentioned is: is it the dress? Is it the C.S.S.U. thing? Once again as stated in the previous paragraph, I would like examples and explanations so that I may explain or defend myself. I must stray from the cold but constructive tone of my response to state that this is a disappointing mindset to see a staff member, let alone an important one, have. I had thought that Aurora prided itself on characters and story, and that players can expect to have their characters respected and be considered, but apparently not. There is a strict process in acquiring and keeping a whitelist, yet when a character/player is considered not up to standard, it seems they are essentially dumped, not even given ten minutes to send a message on the Relay to say goodbye. I would expect some level of decorum and respect to the players - in fact, I do. Entry one of the Code of Conduct specifically establishes that members of the lore team must maintain civility and respect towards players. I feel that this statement inches very close to breaching this rule. I have great respect for you, Caelphon, but this seems too harsh to be acceptable. Despite the previous entry’s harshness, my respect for you is justified with this. I appreciate this and hope it will be taken into account for future whitelist removals, not only mine. I hope that this, what I would define as “concession” by the team is a sign that I can actually have a conversation with them to sort out this issue in the best way possible. No, I do not. What I believe is that for a group of players such as the Synthetic players, simple punishment is simply incompatible. The IPC players are a very tight-knit community, perhaps more than any other: most IPC characters know each other, speak to each other frequently, players evolve each other’s characters together. After the Orepit series, Synthetics took a front seat in in-game interactions and IPC characters came even closer together, aside from some which grew more distant. This is why I believe a different approach should be pursued: this complaint is an example of more trouble than the issue is worth. There are not that many IPC players, truthfully: the variety seen in-game is typically the same player with different characters; as such, and as aforementioned, I will post a policy change thread following this. Whatever the outcome of my whitelist removal is, I would like to see a different option for the SLT instead of warnings and removals. Advice should be given to players, instead of warnings, unless the player’s actions are egregious, unexplained or rule-breaking. The team should be in contact with the players and be open to discussion with them about their mistakes or questionable incidents: this way, the players will trust the team more, be more connected, and I can guarantee that the quality of roleplay for Synthetic players would be well respected. Simple punishments such as this one are what cause animosity between the players and the team. I have been told that at least one player is going to quit playing Aurora altogether because of this incident, and as I am sure the staff has seen, several other players have expressed their negative opinions publicly. This is not some kind of attempt at invoking mob rule, but perhaps proof that there could be a better option than this, a better option than messages out of the blue and whitelist removals. I must say that the way Kyres had handled what could have been taken as a very serious action is in line with what I think the team should strive for. If the issue is manpower, there are plenty of users willing to apply to assist, me included. I would like to end this by requesting that I speak with someone, either @Caelphon, @Lucaken or Lancer about this. As much as the staff complaint is a bureaucratic necessity, I feel it would be more productive to have a discussion over Discord rather than lengthy forum posts like this one. I have attempted to speak to Lancer, but they seemed busy, and both them and Stryker advised me to open a complaint despite my willingness to talk to them rather than do this. I would much rather have a conversation with someone than spend days in this back-and-forth, so that a solution may be reached more hastily. While yes, I am just one person whose whitelist was stripped, I am relying on my belief that the SLT and staff team in general is the best on SS13, and that my doubts and complaints, my ideas for change, will be taken seriously. My DMs are open, and thank you for the response.

BYOND Key: Zulu0009 Staff BYOND Key: Thelancer Game ID: N/A Reason for complaint: Unfair removal of IPC whitelist. Lancer messaged me today informing me that, due to a joke in bad taste about a dress, in addition to a previous issue, my IPC whitelist will be removed, thus (I would assume) deleting all my characters. I cannot but feel outrage at this decision, as it feels extremely biased and one-sided. The specific words used by Lancer are that "we're not satisfied with the quality of your roleplay or the things you've done as a player" so I will refute this and break down exactly why this whitelist strip is unfair. Section 1: Mistakes The dress: this was, admittedly, a weird joke. The exact words were something like "Mobius' dress rides up slightly and it pulls it down, then it remembers it's a Synthetic." made during a 6-8 crew round at 5 am, while sitting in the bar with a handful of people. One player whose name I will not make complained to me about the joke, we spoke for some time, and I apologized, made it non-canon and we actually continued conversing for quite a while afterwards. While it is a bad joke, it was made in some very extreme circumstances. There were four or so people at the bar, it was late, the round was ending, we had nothing to do. I was not aware that someone reported this, and I am disappointed that this person did not just speak to me like the other player did. The important part that I feel must be highlighted is that I did not try to defend the joke, say that it's harmless, etc. I specifically apologized for the emote and made sure to set my boundaries right. Lancer describes this in a way I'd define as kind of exaggerated. Calling this a "pretty big deal" is honestly just... wrong. As out there and in bad taste as the joke was, I do not believe this should be the leading justification to remove my whitelist. C.S.S.U. 32 and 33: C.S.S.U. 32 was an investigator IPC I had made which was consistently antagonizing towards the heads of security it would work under. During a hectic antag round, it was charged with mutiny (not sedition). Lancer admittedly gets this wrong by assuming that the charge was valid, but since it was a result of an antag's actions it would not have happened otherwise: 32 would not have gotten charged with mutiny if the HOS hadn't thought that 32 released a prisoner early- etc. etc. The complaint by Lancer is that I made a similar character, with the name C.S.S.U. 33, and that looks very suspiciously like I am trying to avoid consequences for my character. This is also wrong on several levels: the charge was invalid, for one, and 33 was a successor of 32, after having its positronic reset and wiped, thus effectively deleting the character. Regardless, I realized after five scattered rounds that this looked weird and unfair, and I stopped playing the character. Lancer, regardless, considers this my mistake and is of the opinion that it should still be accounted for. Section 2: Unfairness "We're not satisfied with the quality of your roleplay or the things you've done as a player" is the sentence that Lancer uses to summarize the reason why my whitelist is being removed, but I feel this is incredibly unfair and very biased. It seems the Synthetic team only takes into consideration negative action, and not positive action, which is honestly a horrible concept for an otherwise very capable group of people. If two incidents in the past two or so months of playing can permanently remove my whitelist (which we all know will happen, see 2.) then I am disappointed by what the policy is. The quality of my roleplay is not in question. I will not accept this as a justification of the deletion and removal of my characters, period. Anyone reading this can ask someone else - hell, can ask themselves - which interactions they have had with an IPC of mine, mostly Mobius, and can likely say positive things about them; if they are negative things, they are In-Character things that spark controversy, drama, and roleplay. Lancer has highlighted two negative incidents, so I will list several positive instances of my gameplay as IPC, again, mostly Mobius: Conducted several psychological evaluations, some of which ended up on characters' records and opened up avenues of discussion to further consultations and appointments. Some of these appointments and talks were crucial points in characters' lives, like someone's last visit before leaving, someone's admission of survivor's guilt, someone's last visit before an important surgery. All of these moments are loved and remembered fondly, at least by myself, and make up Mobius' resume as a psychologist. From an IC standpoint, even, Mobius has submitted several evaluations and has even requested a check-up on a woman on Tau Ceti after the request of another character. Hosted two memorial services after the bombing of Orepit, the first of which was quickly turning into a riot against security but was interrupted by mercenaries. Most of the players involved expressed that they would have rather played through the memorial service and the possible arrests and riot than the antag round. People would have rather had their characters arrested standing with Mobius than play an antag round. I would let that sink in, frankly. Has assisted at least two or three people who were about to commit violent actions, self harm or worse, convincing them not to, including at least one antag. Has, at length, spoken about the Trinary Perfection, written several books about the IPC struggle, and stood their ground when asked to take down their flags. The flags themselves have caused a bit of chaos since the Orepit incident, whereas one Skrell XO consistently attempts to take them down. During an antag round, Mobius was ordered to take them down, refused, and was killed as a result, which prompted another IPC antag to attack security in an attempt to get revenge. I would argue that all of this, including the many rounds I have not mentioned or even remember, are all examples of quality roleplay and good things I have done as a player. I don't like to brag, but if my whitelist is at stake, I will. 2. In all honesty, the removal of this whitelist feels like an attempt at forcing me not to play IPCs. I was not able to contest this speaking with Lancer, or explain myself, but was just told to open a staff complaint: it seems the decision had been taken promptly, without even attempting to discuss it with me, to see my defense, or to inform me beforehand so I could figure out how to explain the sudden absence of important ship characters like the aforementioned Mobius. I am now left with no characters to play, since all but two were IPCs, and have nothing to tell the players and characters who were looking forward to speaking with Mobius. This is unacceptable. I should have been given, at least, a day or so to try and come up with a way to explain why a character would disappear out of thin air, but I wasn't. In addition, what am I supposed to do now? I was not given a specific timeframe for when I can apply again, I was not told what to do to "make sure the team can trust me again," I was not given any instructions on what I am supposed to expect now. If the team only accounts for negative actions, how can I seriously be told to prove that I can be trusted?! I was simply messaged, told that my whitelist was removed, and to open a staff complaint. The Synthetic team has been outstanding in recent times, and it saddens me to see that this is the standard. Furthermore, what am I supposed to apply for? Nothing has changed since my previous whitelist application: the character is the same, my opinions are the same, my thoughts are the same. Am I supposed to make up a new character to apply with, and somehow rewrite my thoughts so they are not just copy-pasted? Or will I simply be told "this is a copy-paste" and rejected? I feel it will be the latter. 3. The consequences: quite frankly, this is more trouble than it is worth, in my opinion. By removing my IPC whitelist, I have been essentially stripped, within a day, of all my characters, without any previous notice to make something new to "prove my trust to the team" with. VTM-SP-22 Cyclops, an Ace Combat homage bridge crewman. Object 889, a Soviet-inspired but anti-Soviet Himean machinist. C.S. Kerberos, a heavy combat unit repurposed as a cook. Thespian, an actor IPC used for antag play. And, of course, Mobius. I would argue that Mobius has been my best character so far, at all, and removing him entirely from being played is honestly a huge mistake. All because of two incidents, both of which I promptly rectified or tried to rectify, several characters will be without a psychologist, several characters will not have a figure to speak about the Trinary Perfection to. Some characters will not have an IPC to antagonize about their religion, even. As humbly as I can say this: removing Mobius is removing an active and appreciated character, the only psychologist ever on duty, and a person which many characters speak to, look forward to speaking to, have had positive relations with, or rely upon. Is it really worth removing my whitelist and forcing me to play something else for... however long, for two mistakes which I acknowledge, apologize for, and have rectified? I don't like to brag, again, but really, man? Mobius is low roleplay? You have to be kidding. I cannot accept the fact that nothing of what I do on a daily basis, all the effort I put into this character and my characters, is being torn down because of two stupid accidents. Once again, I was not given a time, a way, or a person to speak to - I wasn't told anything about when I would get my whitelist back. Frankly, if I can't play an established character I love as much as Mobius, I don't think I want to play at all, which I am sure will only factor more into the bureaucratic blacklist I am being put into. If I don't play because I don't like any characters but Mobius, I can't prove myself. If I play a character I don't like or want to play, I can't play well, thus I can't prove myself. I have essentially been thrust into a position where I can no longer play the game, interact with my favorite people, or further a story I enjoy, because of two things I did. I apologize if this is very lengthy, but I don't think many people understand this: Mobius, and consequently Aurora, is the thing I do. The thing I look forward to. The thing I read books for. The thing I spend money on to enjoy better. I will fight tooth and nail against this whitelist removal - I have nothing else to lose. I don't know if I'm allowed to, but I would encourage people to come forward and give evidence that I am worthy of keeping this whitelist. Evidence/logs/etc: Message recapping why the WL is removed: Mentioned request to tone things down: Additional remarks: N/A

Big drawing for Joint Mobius gets turned into a stationbound, promptly has a horror moment

This legendary thread will live in history as the Mo(r)bius List. What is the Mo(r)bius List, you may ask? It will be a list of the sinners and monsters who refer to Mobius as Morbius, OOC or (so much worse) IC, in addition to the shenanigans related to the character. I have promised to make this for a while, and now is the time. It is truly, finally - Mobin' time.

Reporting Personnel: Mobius Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Psychologist Game ID: cjf-arhV Personnel Involved: Shirin Abbasi, Head of Security: Offender - Jaquelyn Roberts, Surgeon: Offender - Hossl Suazra, Security Officer: Witness - Ahkam Al-Nasrallah, Captain: Other (mentioned) - Andrea Illazso, Chief Medical Officer: Other (mentioned) - Marian Maz, Off-Duty: Other (mentioned) Secondary Witnesses: N/A Time of Incident: N/A Real Time: 0500 GMT+2, 04/08/2022 Location of Incident: Horizon Medical Bay, general Horizon incident Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [ ] - Neglect of Duty [ ] - Harassment [ ] - Assault [X] - Misconduct [ ] - Other _____ Overview of the Incident: On the specified day and shift, the internal security department decided to perform a response time drill, with the secondary effect of highlighting the importance of suit sensors. Said drill began halfway through a psychological evaluation I was conducting, with no previous announcement or notice that it was not a real situation. The drill started via radio messages by the Head of Security, in which they pretended to be fired at by a weapon while screaming and running. The first issue I must note is that, despite being a security-focused drill, I have suspicion that nobody outside the security department was informed of it, which could have caused panic and fear among the crew. Whilst the medical department seemed to have provided the idea to the security department roughly thirty minutes before the drill took place, they too were left uninformed and questioning whether it was a real situation or not, aside from Chief Medical Officer Andrea Illazso: however, Chief Medical Officer Illazso stated to me that she acknowledged her mistake as noted in the Actions Taken section. As such, I have only included them for the record. Roughly fifteen minutes after the drill began, which involved the security department and one or two members of the medical department, an announcement was posted stating that the situation had been simulated. The source of the incident report is the temporary mental distress caused to the interviewing patient, one Marian Maz, who was not aware of such drill and who was visibly shaken when the simulated gunfire began, and visibly angered when it was revealed to be a drill. For the record, Marian Maz is a young, newly transferred crew member currently in the process of finding an occupation aboard the SCCV Horizon. While her records are covered by patient confidentiality laws, I can state that she had not previously received a psychological evaluation, and the one I performed was the first one she had received. I believe this to be enough, together with her very young age and status as newly arrived personnel, to indicate that hearing another crew member screaming and supposedly being attacked may have affected her mental status and perception of working on the Horizon to a degree. The following are my two complaints: 1. The Head of Security failed to follow proper procedure for such an event by not informing any crew members not directly linked to the security training or not taking the correct steps to ensure that the crew members not directly linked to the training would be safe and informed of their safety. When these concerns were brought to them, in a self-admittedly unorthodox way, they attempted to interrupt me, then told me to relay my complaint to the Captain, then told me to exit their department. The result I seek for this entry of the report is a note to this Head of Staff that security drills should be conducted with a procedural planning pyramid that ensures the mental and physical safety of the crew of the ship and the ship. I seek no disciplinary action for this person. 2. Jaquelyn Roberts, Surgeon, entered the psychologist's office with full knowledge that an evaluation was being performed and spoke dismissively and rudely to the patient involved, after a statement by myself, along the lines of quote "you can tell her yourself," following my complaint over the medical radio channel that the drill had not been announced (see point 1). Upon being spoken to, admittedly with unfriendly tone, by myself, she lashed out and insulted the patient and myself. The result I seek for this entry of the report is disciplinary action against the crew member for verbal misconduct unfit for a medical professional, and breach of privacy laws by entering an evaluation without approval. Whilst I admit that my tone was not necessarily constructive when speaking to the persons mentioned in entries 1 and 2, I believe in the fact that my duty and occupation is the preservation and safeguard of the mental health of the crew of the SCCV Horizon. Given that such duty and occupation was interrupted and the mental health of a crew member was temporarily or possibly permanently affected by this incident, I only state that my tone could have been more constructive and respectful; I stand by what I stated in its conceptual form and feel the need to point out the equally unconstructive behavior of the persons mentioned in entries 1 and 2. Submitted Evidence: No evidence is available. Would you like to be personally interviewed?: [X] - Yes [ ] - No Did you report it to a Head of Staff or a superior? If so, who? If not, why?: Yes: the incident was reported to Head of Security Shirin Abbasi, who informed me to relay the incident to Captain Ahkam Al-Nasrallah. Actions taken: Personal actions taken involve speaking to the persons mentioned in the two above entries and reporting the incident to Captain Ahkam Al-Nasrallah. Actions taken by Chief Medical Officer Andrea Illazso include speaking to me about the incident and acknowledging her mistakes, including noting that in the future, drills such as the one reported here will be scheduled in accordance to medical examinations. I am not aware of any actions taken by other persons mentioned in this report. Additional Notes: N/A

The issue here is that while I understand and agree that I should not be expected to do medical, in fact, I rarely do when there's physicians or surgeons. At most, I'll do first aid and basic triage during chaotic rounds, or since I play a G2, offer to provide medbay security. The issue does come up when, like many times, I find myself to be the only medical personnel on duty. Yes, I could say "I don't know how" or "this is not my area of expertise," the issue is more personal, hence why this is a vent and not a complaint or anything else. I could say those things, but I'd just feel guilty. I remember a while ago that I was too busy with university to play that often, so I was very bummed out if I died during the one or two rounds I could play. Since then, I feel some level of obligation to help people, and I will do it if I must. I guess the problem is that not many other people play medical, so this extra assignment I give myself happens very often. I appreciate the input, it definitely feels great to be a psychologist when it does happen, it's extremely rewarding. But hell, you'd have to pay me to play security lol

When I decided to make Mobius a psychologist, almost a year ago, I had envisioned lengthy sessions of talking to traumatized people, holding a person's hand as they weep about a lost loved one, helping people recover from horrible events or working to alleviate their illnesses. And partially, I got it. A handful of characters regularly speak to Doctor Mobius, and it follows them as much as possible. Heartbroken dregs, confused IPCs, disillusioned Solarians. And when that happens, I rejoice, for my dream of sitting in the chair and taking notes while someone pours their heart out happened. Unfortunately, that is not often the case. Rants and complaints about the medical bay seem quite common, but this is not a complaint. Just a vent, and maybe a polite request. Please go easy on the medical bay. I did not sign up for this, man. I did not make this character only to be forced to do first aid because nobody else is available or playing. I do not want to do this, but it happens so often, and I hate not doing it. Who else will do first aid but me, the only one with access to the medical bay? I did not mind, at first, I even had Mobius learn the basics by asking physicians and experts, but now... it's just so painful. Every time the antag starts making demands or threatening or claiming that they kidnapped someone or yelling about a grand political cause, I sigh and try to face the fact that my next two hours will be a chore. This is not what I want to do, but I don't have an option. Do I play off-duty? Then I would never be able to practice psychology. Do I refuse to help? I'd get detained, or yelled at, or arrested, or bwoinked. Do I leave, cryo? I'd still like to play the game. So here I am, having to decide whether I want to play or not, because those are my only options. Either I play and volunteer to do something I'm not supposed to do, or people die and their round ends. I hate how much of a victim I am making myself, but really, I am getting tired. Too tired. Is it really so much to ask that antags find gimmicks that don't require mass casualties? Is it too much to ask for some mercy? Sure, I could ahelp, beg if they can be asked to tone their chaos down, but will I have to do it every round? And after how long will that cause a decline in antag players, and then stagnation, and the consequences that follow? I'm just tired, man. Not many people play medical, and those few probably feel compelled to join and help even if it means they'll just do a job for an hour or two, with barely any RP or enjoyment on their part. I'm sure there's another dozen threads talking about possible medical changes, and I'm sorry if this adds to the pile - but if there's a pile, maybe there's a problem, and whether that's an antag problem or a medical problem, I have no idea. All I know is that I just wanted to grill perform psych evals, man. It's not Mobin' time...

Surprise Form Update! After some time not updating this, I decided to improve it by streamlining it and making it more accessible and easy to use. It is now a Google Doc, which I recommend using instead of the formatted, in-game version due to typing limits in-game. These evals can get pretty long, and you don't want to run out of space. Furthermore, a Google Doc is easier to share! Just open the template, click on File > Make a copy and rename it to the patient's name, such as "Psych Eval - John Doe." Enjoy! It is divided into five sections, and here I provide some information for you: Patient Information: their name, date of birth, age, sex (including preferred pronouns if they state so), marital status (single, divorced, etc.) and financial status, something around lower class, middle class, upper class and in between. Clinical Interview: the patient's history, if they have any symptoms and what you make of them, if the patient has any objectives regarding these symptoms (getting rid of depression, for example) and what is stopping them from achieving them. Patient History Review: some questions regarding the patient's situation, inform them that they can avoid answering them if they are not comfortable doing so; remember, you need to build trust with your patient! Mental Status Details: the chunky part. The words stated under each category are supposed to help you describe their symptoms or provide guidance towards what to ask. Emotional State: something that you need to gauge yourself. Are they closed off? Are they reactive to questions? Maybe they get angry when questioned? Orientation: quite simply the patient's orientation skills. Can they tell where they are and who they are? Perception: ask the patient if they suffer from hallucinations of any kind, whether they can see, hear, smell, touch things that are not there. Thought Content: ask the patient if they sometimes feel delusional thoughts, such as "someone wants to kill me", "I am a god" or "The Skrell are out to destroy the galaxy". Remember that intrusive and impulsive thoughts, such as suddenly wanting to stab yourself when holding a knife, are common and are not always the sign of an ailment! Thought Process: something that you should gauge. Is the patient's way of thinking coherent and concrete, or do they change their mind often, fail to keep a straight line of thinking, etc.? Judgment: ask typical questions, such as "You find a wallet on the street, what do you do with it?" or "You find an envelope ready to be mailed, what do you do with it?" You should use your own judgment and keep in mind the patient's origin, condition and mental state before writing down your answer. A unique question is: "You find a shopping cart next to its stall. Do you put it inside or leave it alone as you pass by?" There is no reason to put the cart back aside from simply a strong moral compass, and the reward of the coin that was in the cart! Memory: ask the patient to remember a word at the start of the section, then ask them at the end. Furthermore, ask them something memorable in the previous day, then in the present month, then in the present year, to gauge whether they can remember those memories. Prognosis: the final part of the evaluation! Summarizing Notes: what goes after PASSED or FAILED in the patient's records. Briefly include what the evaluation revealed, whether the person is fit for duty or not, and what they should do in the future. Diagnoses/Justification: any diagnosis you think is legitimate for the patient, and why you think so. Remember that only psychiatrist can diagnose mental illnesses! If you are a psychologist performing this, and you believe the patient is at risk or needs intervention, contact the CMO or a head of staff. Follow-Up Plan: what you think the patient should do in the future, be it therapy sessions, further consultations, a rest period, etc. And that's all! You've successfully performed your evaluation. It is best to contact the player via Discord or send them the shared link via LOOC. It is also best to agree with the player if you wish to FAIL their evaluation, since that means the character would ideally be restricted from working until a solution is found. That said, as always, if you have any suggestions or would like to discuss this, my Discord is Zulu#8899 and I would love professional input regarding this. Finally, here is the template's link, which you are free to make a copy of and edit, improve or decorate. Thank you, and have a healthy day! https://docs.google.com/document/d/12HR3XqSNT0XoHy18LVLqR0hSf8LCR9zqodIYTpcuNB4/edit?usp=sharing

Absolutely support this, nobody should be able to just dock in a ship as large as the Horizon without being detected anyway. Needing to actually contact the bridge to dock is an essential addition. And if you don't have docking codes, you have to park next to the Horizon and make your way inside yourself. Seems fair. Transponders seem like a cool idea too! That way a smart antag ship can fake being something else, like an Orion Express ship, to pass by unseen or dock with the Horizon. Cool idea.

Solid +1, I didn't know they were randomized and it doesn't make a lotta sense.

I guess I'm just gonna have to agree to disagree, it was a chaotic round but it felt completely unreasonable; the character of 32 has been scrapped anyway since it was generally poorly received and poorly made, so, I guess in the end he did get scrapped. RIP.

The solution could be to make mining trips larger and involve more people so they can escort the miners and kill enemies, Baystation style, the problem then is babysitting some poor miner who just wants to grill mine by himself surrounded by twelve security officers. Maybe give mining more guns? Arm the miners. Escalate the war against critters. Give the miners tactical nuclear ordnance.

I had no idea that happened? I remember it freed the janitor, but I told it to let him go and security dragged him back into a cell. And yeah, I know 32 is a dick, I've come to enjoy the fact that he's the character to be contrarian and always speaks out, even if I still don't 100% like him in the first place. I've had negative feedback so I'm considering scrapping it and trying something else. I told him once, as I quoted, "There's no basis for mutiny," after that I went and sat in the lobby. I am surprised, yeah! I didn't lower the sentence, the Warden is still the only one who could lol, I don't know why I was charged and not the Warden! I'm kind of convinced I'm working off a different definition of mutiny, it's still "To openly rebel against or attempt to remove command staff with violent intent." right? From a legal standpoint, the aiding and abetting clause wouldn't have made sense either, since the reporter was free and had not been charged with mutiny, but that's kind of complicated in the heat of the moment, I guess. I'm still not sure why everyone thinks that 32 was somehow the source of the problem because of one suggestion that the Warden took honestly. I mean, it's right here: You even recognize that it was the Warden who disobeyed orders. Was it because 32 said "fight me over it" that all of this started? The other, bigger problem is another clause that's near the aiding and abetting: "Positronic intelligences are not protected by capital punishment laws. Those charged with red level infractions may be at risk of being dismantled or destroyed." The reason 32 was acting cocky is because, from its point of view, you suspended it, then arrested it, then charged it with mutiny because it suggested "hey we should lower the charge to sedition," essentially sentencing it to death because it had convinced someone to disobey and order. If anything, it should have reacted more aggressively in self-preservation. I can see where the aiding would be taken from, but damn man, this all started because he told someone else not to get a guy in the brig with the threat of marooning lol I was going to drop this issue and in fact, was thinking of deleting this post, but the way Matt responded saying that this was a justified arrest confused me. It seems like everyone forgot that the Warden was in the equation too and decided to put all the blame on 32, who had been essentially absent from the round and had done nothing during it. I'm still holding my ground because I'm a law student and I must prove I am correct every time the law is involved, obviously.

BYOND Key: Zulu0009 Game ID: ciV-dGHs Player Byond Key/Character name: Shirin Abbasi (I think), partially Karl Voigt Staff involved: None, unless the players of those characters are staff Reason for complaint: After being given a strike on the relay for briefly complaining about the issue, I was told to make a complaint. At the very end of the round, when it's usually preferred to not do anything major, my character, C.S.S.U. 32 Detective, was arrested for mutiny and mistreated because of miscommunication, which I am complaining about because, frankly, it feels like sometimes people will pull off something big just before the round ends, since it won't be canon anyway and the round is ending. I will now take you through a timeline of events during that round. It's a vampire round, it's a mess. A reporter seems to be writing stories following one of the vampires. Hell breaks loose, there's fights everywhere, the security team is ordered to arrest the reporter for mutiny, key word during this entire complaint. They are detained, brought in and when the Warden asks me "What crime?" I tell him "There's no basis for mutiny. Sedition." technically, I, an investigator, have no basis to arrest someone or charge them, so the Warden either didn't know this, assumed I was relaying the HOS' orders, or took my suggestion. Right after, I say in the radio: "We're doing sedition for the reporter, since there's no basis for mutiny." to which there is no response. After the Warden asks if the reporter can write from the brig and the HOS says no, I ask playfully "Is it no for sedition or for reporting in the brig?" also to ensure that it was clear that the reporter was being charged with sedition, not mutiny. No response. Why was I adamant on him not being charged with mutiny? Because he had not been doing anything that falls under, or justifies mutiny, and it didn't make sense for me or my character to say "sure, sentence this guy to death by marooning because he wrote some articles," and despite that, I did not charge them myself. Because I can't. Like, physically, I cannot. The round goes on, fifteen minutes pass, the bluespace jump passes too. I have had no interactions or involvement with the reporter at this point aside from suggesting sedition as a charge, calling them bald as a fellow bald (IPC gang) and casual conversation. The reporter is released because the time is up (I later realized that someone thought I released them prematurely, I did not). The HOS finds out, and I tell them that they weren't charged for mutiny, because there were no grounds, and specifically said "Fight me over it" because it fit the character. The HOS storms over, yelling, and tells me I'm suspended for my insubordination, despite the fact that I, an investigator, cannot charge people with crimes, and the Warden did all the work. I am then arrested over failure to comply, so I calmly follow the Warden into a room to take my things, see previous sentence. My charge is then moved from that, to aiding and abetting, to mutiny, because I had the gull to joke and lightly jab the HOS for such a bogus charge based on an actual mistake. See previous sentences. Karl Voigt then comes in, not sure why, calls me useless and tells me I should be killed ("Should be able to remove your positronic") even though my character and his have never met, and leaves. The Warden takes my things and right before the round ends, states that he's not sure he wants to charge me, after I recite the mutiny charge description word by word (I am a law enforcement synthetic after all). The Warden and I have a laugh when I say "Oh, this is the part where I hand over my badge and gun to the brass" and call him punk. Best Warden. Now, I'm completely fine with corruption, bad policing, discrimination, whatever, because it's fun and it creates drama. In fact, I was over this mishap five minutes after it ended, the strike on the relay came after I said that I was done and I didn't care (the strike was warranted, I bitched too much lol). But the thing that kinda pisses me off is: would this have happened in the middle of the round? Would this HOS have charged me for mutiny and sentenced me to marooning or cyborgification at one hour into the round? Sure, one could argue that yes, it'd have been fun to see how the security and the ship would react, but if the XO was fine with it without even knowing what happened, damn, my odds are fucked. I guess this complaint is partially a vent and partially me saying, hey, can we not do this shit again? Please don't start something like this at the end of the round, like, literally the last 120 seconds of the round. If you wanna do the bad cop and try to charge someone like that, find another round. If your character is too angry and NEEDS to punish someone "too much" and charge them like that, maybe break character and don't do it. In addition, would they have done it if the round was canon? If the Detective IPC was now actually charged with mutiny? Would that character have risked a corporate hearing and possibly jail time for that mess just because they were too pissed off? Once again, this isn't a complaint meant to ask for punishment, just trying to wave in the wind and ask that end of round stuff is avoided, because 90% of the time it feels exaggerated and memey. I have nothing against the person who plays the HOS, if they just got too angry, that's cool, if they actually stand by this... damn, HOS is ruthless, and very uncaring of her career lol; personally I'm fine, I was just a little pissed off because it felt like I was suddenly the enemy of the ship with two heads of staff insulting me, being charged with mutiny for effectively doing nothing - just a lot of stuff that could have been avoided had the HOS just asked like, two questions, but other than that, this is water under the bridge. Just water that I hope doesn't pass under it again, you know? Did you attempt to adminhelp the issue at the time? If so, what was the known action taken by administration/moderation? No, I was too busy trying to talk while the HOS raised my charges and while I was having my things taken from me, plus, literally the last 120 seconds. Approximate Date/Time: 16/07/2022 at roughly 0400 (glorious GMT+2)

I lost the AI whitelist due to a dumb mistake a while ago, but I still feel this. AI is boring. I had to make up a vocabulary and an entire google document full of code words just to have something special to do as AI. Right now, it really is just a door opener. During downtime, you're doing nothing, opening doors, maybe talking to someone if they remember you exist. During action, you're basically forced by your laws and the constant fact that nobody knows you're there, to do nothing: at most, open a door, or track someone, or relay information. The fact that you can't even raise the alert level is disappointing. I know there's some kind of pre-AI whitelist stigma, but that was what? Years ago? Why are we still so hung up on the ever living fear of the AI? Why does it take such a scrutinous whitelist process, why should I suffer from constant overwatch, messages and warnings, just because of something that happened before I even started playing SS13? The AI right now is... quite useless, it's a voice in the sky that has no duties, no jobs, no privileges and no sense. The fact that we're still discussing the idea that the AI can raise the alert level is kind of sad. Helm? Sure. Maybe the AI can only engage the ship's autopilot, but the fact that if the bridge crewman has a heart attack and the ship is flying into a meteor storm I have to pluck someone from their department and guide them into the bridge to stop the ship is just... inadmissible. I have so many complaints about AI, but this is an excellent suggestion and I haven't really seen any reasonable, logical or legitimate criticism towards it. This one in particular was confusing: I don't quite understand how the AI team "not being interested" in adding features accounts in this discussion. Surely if enough people agree with the OP, then these things should be at least considered. If the alert system is not essential - then why is the AI not allowed to use it? You would figure something as relatively useless as making the lights red and playing a fancy mp3 of an alarm would be just fine for AI. Besides, why wouldn't the Captain order the AI to raise the alert level? That is a classic movie thing and being denied this pleasure is basically a crime. I don't really understand the point about the ship floating or flying. What if the mining shuttle is damaged and two miners are dying, but there's no bridge crew or anyone to fly the ship or a shuttle? The AI would have to just... let them die, because it can't move the ship? As I said above, at least let it engage the autopilot.

I actually think there are enough lounges, I keep finding them in places I had no idea they were and I really don't quite understand why there are so many - there's plenty of spots to talk without being interrupted. Besides, why is smoking allowed anyway? I mean, sure, it's banned in the medbay and in engineering (I think, I hope) but why can I smoke in a closed environment, in space, where air is recycled and reintroduced into the environment? How many times do the engineers have to change the air filters because some dude felt like smoking on top of a vent, you know?

I've played a few rounds with Volvalaad now, great CMO, it's good to see him actively engaged and serious about stuff, managing the department, not being super strict or overbearing but also never absent or uncaring. Also very strict about personal morals, such as no borgification and a strong support for mental health which literally doesn't matter for this app but I give it brownie points because I like him. He has my +1 and I love him.