Garnascus

You could roll with the gimmick. Going on an expedition armed to the teeth sounds fun. You do not always have to kill the antag.

Also please no dogpile

I will not allow lore to be used to murder an AI who is trying to act in good faith. Yes

Dude... It admits its unlawed it round start. It goes two hours without spamming max caps, syphoning people or force borging. It attempts to involve the crew in "duels" and some "expeditions" of which you yourself benefited from. It claims it would defend itself IF and ONLY IF crew tried to kill it. You walked into its core and killed it. This is not ok. You should have not tried to kill it.

This all sounds like cool RP So does this. You even got to spend a load of cash. The only reasonable thing? All it said was it would defend its existence if the crew tried to kill it. Cant you just.... not try to kill it? It seems like the AI was going out of its way to not be a murder-hobo-death-AI....

Any type of survivor role. Maybe with a ship they have to fix or a radio station they can construct to contact the aurora. Lots of potential but we already have a neat away mission system we can utilize. Maybe even fill it with player-controlled-enemies.

This is probably good. An antag with just a single piece of shrapnel right now is a death sentence. Probably fine too. Theres too many guns tbh. An idea i have always loved is cause brute damage to nerds who try to disarm you of your esword/axe/knife. You dont try to throw hands to someone with an edged weapon.

No, its not and theres no way for me to prove that you're lying because you hate the guy playing him. The people involved in this complaint did it all IC. That sucks. I think this kind of impact is inappropriate and i will see it changed. I will not allow an IC system of punishing players to be hijacked by popularity. Full stop. Currently i aim to better equip CCIA to figure out such things with CCIA liaisons being able to read some measure of round logs. Its still being discussed.

Hello, this topic is currently being discussed internally. We recognize that it is an issue we need to address with a policy update. Flamingo and i do not feel anyone needs to or is going to be punished here for a couple of reasons. The first is CCIA have had a long standing policy that lying in interviews is acceptable. The second reason is no server rules where broken. We do however have to address the issue of "what if ccia is not adequately equipped to detect lies?". If it is too easy to lie then CCIA becomes functionally useless. We have brainstormed a variety of solutions. 1. We do nothing. Lying IC is IC. If you manage to get away with it then congratulations you got away with it. 2. Lying is outright forbidden during interviews. If you are found to be lying then action is taken against you OOC as it will be treated as "do not lie to staff". 3. You are permitted to lie to protect YOURSELF and ONLY yourself. You are not permitted to make up falsehoods against another character. 4. CCIA get access to server logs in the same way admins do. Every IR gets checked against server logs. Currenly lancer the head of CCIA feels that a form of 4 would be best. That our CCIA liaisons get access to radio logs and perhaps say logs. These can then be checked against the facts or statements of interviews. I do not know how well or how much this will solve the issue. I personally find it deplorable for a player to engage in this kind of deception. Imagine if every IR looked like this. Players getting together and agreeing on a certain narrative to use against someone else. It is unacceptable and if needs be i will just forbid lying outright regardless of the mental gymnastics required. I am unwilling to do this without trying softer approaches first.

I do not think its appropriate to remove clothing options just because you do not like them. If black sec is becoming rampant then it means people like using the clothing. Taking it away is just going to foster resentment which is no good.

I am sorry but we do not expunge notes for this reason. We can overturn specific instances however and we can also better communicate the validity of years old notes.

It sounds like you disagree with the judgement they made for the reason stated. That would be an appropriate reason to make a complaint against them and potentially an issue we would look to address. It was @Cnaym If you could give us some information about this incident.

but.... Why?

You cant RP without hands.

In situations as tame as this one its preferable to speak with the person in question first. Shadow did not do anything wrong in regards to how we expect moderators to act. This will be locked and archived in 24 hours.

Mods do not have the .getserverlog verb so shadow would have been unable to verify it if he didnt see it in his chat log. I do not see anything wrong here.

And i assume the warning wasn't given on the initial ahelp because he could have DCed or something and you did not have all the information to warn him?

So, the individual was dealt with. What happened in between amory being told to make a player complaint and the player getting warned? I dont get it.

So im just going to re-iterate what i said in my previous post. 1. You need to re-work your records. You cannot have such a clear criminal history or you would not be hired. If you want to have it as part of your back story you essentially need to lie and hide it somehow. 2. You need to keep an actual goal in mind as an antagonist. Chaos for its own sake is lame and uninteresting. We can do better. 3. Fishing for antag is kinda discouraged. I encourage you to make some use of your time even if you arent an antag. Everything else is as sand in the desert. I am all yet i am void.

So..... What actually happened with the player in question? Did they get warned or something?

Locking and archiving

Also, lets try to be a little concise here. Do it for me cuz i have to read all of this and i have a 20 IQ snail brain.

So, alleged issues with naelyn. 1. They cryo a lot if they do not get antag 2. They repeat the same few things over and over with little goal in mind as antag. 3. They ganked you twice. I will of course just start with the first point. While i understand the intention of the character and the gimmick it has going for it i do not really think it is appropriate to literally always cryo if you do not get antag. It is entirely possible to have a criminal character or an evil alignened character within our rules but you probably should not broadcast that in your records even if its intended to give security a chance. These things will need to be reworked. I also do not want to create a culture here where we are ahelping literally anytime this character cyros from now on. Dont do it. The point is not how often or how little the character cryoes but that they act in good faith in not fishing for antag so obviously. The second point is a little difficult. I partly blame gimmick culture for this but its really not a problem if antags follow a generic formula. Perhaps you just want to steal a specific mcguffin and that mcguffin just happens to be the vault every round. Perhaps you just want that cool captains laser every round. All of this is fine to do no matter how many times you do it. All you have to do is sell us somehow, someway that you have some sort of goal or motivation in mind.If you want to "cause chaos" thats fine but give me a decent reason on why you want to cause chaos. The distinction here is very important and it changes how your character would play. Obviously i think it is healthier. Last but not least we arrive to the final point. I believe both situations in which naelynn killed you are totally and completely valid. There is never ever a time where i would expect an antagonist to accept being arrested or risk being captured or alerted to by the rest of security. You are a security guard. You are a direct threat to naelynn. In the first situation you caught her breaking into an area while she was carrying an esword and who knows what else. If you capture her she risks having her round ended. Thats it. She is allowed to kill you because of that. The reverse is also. You would have been completely justified in pulling out your own weapon the moment you saw her. The second situation is even more egregious. The AI told you that she had turned into a backpack and she was currently stealing from the captains office. These are charges enough to completely end her round. Straight to permabrig. You hopped over the desk with willful ignorance and she esworded you to death. Totally and completely valid for reasons already stated. The responsibility an antag has to not kill someone is proportional to the situation. For example i would find it odd if joe schmoe threw you down disposals after you told him not to smoke in medbay. I would not find it odd of joe schmoe pulls out his .357 revolver and blows your head off after you catch him breaking into the vault. Also as a final note i do see a lot of documentation and notes regarding some of the ansillary issues related to naelynn's character you have provided. Overall it appears this complaint has some merit. Namely with points one and two.

I will take a look at this tonight.

Alright well this seems to have resolved itself then. If there is nothing else i will lock and archive this in 24 hours or sometime next month when i remember to.