Garnascus

No because the second they are given the chance they WILL fuck you over and if they lose they will ahelp regardless of the situation. Hopefully you have a good reason for killing someone beyond "i want their ID". If so then you can lure them somehow to somewhere nice and quiet and blow their head off. You should only focus on not breaking rules. A singular player is absolutely not entitled to a monologue or even a chance at escaping. You're expected to drive conflict or a story for the round as a whole.

Locking and archiving. This complaint is considered resolved.

I have not given this a proper reply because it has been my day off from work. I have read over it in detail now and honestly xor you're kinda getting off easy here. I cannot fathom how you STILL think this was acceptable behavior. Do you think the staff is just out to get you? You had multiple opportunities to de-escalate the situation or act in reasonable manner. Instead you pulled the old "i am loyalty implanted so my actions CANT be in the wrong". The logs behind the spoiler are just a portion of evidence abosh posted. Your actions where several orders of magnitude greater than just "hurting someones feelings" man. I cannot for the life of me find anyway to defend you here.

locking and archiving

Alberyk's call on the specific incident you described in the OP looks valid to me. Yes this is a roleplay server but no matter how you analyze this situation its completely unreasonable to expect them to just chat with you. Whether the event as a whole was good or bad isn't for me to say. If there isnt any further issues i will lock and archive this in 24 hours.

that may have actually been your intention. I feel like its unreasonable though considering there where officers, the HoS and combat borgs present. The time for talking is pretty much gone at that point.

admins are absolutely allowed to adminbus at round end. Its fucking hilarious and one of the perks of the job. Im generally more creative but theres basically no limit to what we can do outside of spawning a shit load of hostile mobs or gibbing people. Maybe next time everyone should get a mech.

I will grant you this appeal. You're on thin ice > Please follow the rules and roleplay appropriately.

No, it will not end up in the head of staff forum if we choose to not accept it. There are fundamental issues with it that we do not feel comfortable bringing on the player base. We discussed it and analyzed it at length. Us disagreeing with you doesn't make us wrong.

What do you plan on doing to address the issue of being 'ban-light', exactly? What constitutes as a particular situation that staff should be more lax with enforcing and what situations you should be cracking down harder on? It's already difficult to pinpoint what a particular player or person 'deserves' as part of their consequences for their own actions because no one person is the sole arbitrator of good and bad behavior, especially considering the dodgy nature of an RP-focused server and individuals of various backgrounds and methods of communicating with one another in their fashions. What's going to change to ensure making these calls are easier for staff to make? Would you like community members to participate in some manner to help stave off toxicity, perhaps with some added benefit for said players to be proactive in reporting problematic behavior? This is spitballing one idea and I'm aware of the potential consequences with that but it's not worth clogging up the thread, the major idea just being that if ideas are still needed to bring to the table to make this easier for staff to handle issues. We are talking about players who receive warning after warning for the same type of behavior again and again. We need to be more willing to ban them. Recognizing the problem exists and being more aware of a players history is all we need to do. Does this also include alien races not suited for certain jobs, i.e. a Dionaea Security Officer or EMT? Being a Dionaea is, essentially, crippling, but where is the line drawn for this one? Would be okay for a Dionaea to be a Warden or Forensic Tech or Detective, a less run-to-the-scene job? And what about security cadet in order to reach Detective status or train under a Warden? What about an Emergency Technician? Technically a medical doctor, that job requires speed as well to stabilize a severely hurt patient and even if, mechanically, a Dionaea could do it, roleplay-wise they probably shouldn't. We only ban races from jobs if the relevant lore developer wants them banned.

We had a meeting on this date to discuss a few issues. Below is a list of staff that attended, the issues we discussed, and our resolution for these issues. Staff that attended Garnascus Strudel ShameOnTurtles TrickingHatser Cake House_Of_Synth Exia Ezuo Pratepresidenten Coalf Alberyk Sircatnip Aboshehab Skull Thedococt Juani The issues we discussed Our resolutions. 1. It was foretold in the scrolls of old that once upon a time we as a staff team agreed that a thirty minute respawn timer was too long. Due to quantum fluctuations and one of our previous headmins turning out to be a changeling the knowledge of this agreement was.... obfuscated! We have thus agreed to abide by the agreement and lower the respawn timer to 20 minutes and see how that affects things! 2. Antagonist tokens where discussed. We are keen on adding them as another tool in our toolbox. They will be given to antags who lose their antag status due to a server crash. Likely only one per person and the selection of antagonists they will be able to become will also be limited. Finer specifics need to be worked out by the rest of the admin team. 3. We are pretty much all in agreement here. Non-civillian departments are not permitted any disabilities that could seriously affect their job. No crippled EMTs, no mute security officers and no blind engineers. You can always ask for specifics or ask a staff member if X would be ok but please keep in mind nanotrasen is really not going to give a fuck about whatever ethical issues you might have over getting a prosthetic limb or organ. This goes doubly so if you are a head of staff. 4. This is a large issue and its a conversation we will constantly be having. We feel we have two issues here. One is that mixed secret is resulting in too many rounds with too much shit hitting the fan. This makes it very difficult to get meaningful character progression or much roleplay at all beyond "omg everything is broken". The second issue is one we have always had. We as a staff team tend to be very ban-light. We are incredibly unwilling to drop heavy bans or even permanent plans on players that quite frankly do deserve it. Lately we have gotten incredibly lax on this with more than a few examples cropping up in msay and the staff discord of "why did you note this guy when he has 7 notes on things like this and 2 temp bans". Names are not going to be named and this is not being said to start a witch hunt. Understand that we are recognizing this as an issue and we need to be more willing to remove players that cannot follow the rules. 5. On paper mixed secret has been a huge success. It is voted in almost exclusively during prime time. The large amount of antags in these modes gives a lot more players the chance to play as an antagonist. These modes however almost always end in a code red situation in which the station is filled with holes and the walls are plastered with the crews blood. This is all well and good but when these rounds become the norm we feel it shifts the server too far to the action side of things. We are a heavy roleplay server and during these rounds it is incredibly difficult to get any kind of meaningful character progression beyond " i died horribly ". Therefore we are merging mixed secret into the old secret game mode and adjusting the round weights accordingly. Tweaks will be made if they are needed during this test phase with the ultimate goal being a balance between the more chill "secret" game modes and the action filled "mixed secret" game modes. 6. The suggestion made here https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=9188 was given serious consideration during the meeting. After much deliberation we mostly have to echo a large portion of the criticisms in that thread. While the idea has merit we do not feel comfortable giving heads of staff unlimited ability to add notes to other players. Even if the note is given in error it puts the player at an immediate disadvantage. We would IC trust the word and judgement of a head of staff over other crew. Compromises to this would mostly defeat the intent of the suggestion in its original form. Allowing players to remove notes themselves would defeat the point of this entirely. We already have a problem with players removing security records that should remain canon. According to the server rules all conflict remains canon unless ALL parties agree to de-canonize it. We cannot effectively moderate what we do not know about however. The one compromise most of us where able to see merit in is giving this power to IAA only. Heads of staff would have to go through IAA to add a note to an employee. IAA are trained to be neutral and unbiased and perform fair investigations. I personally think it is more trouble than its worth. I do not personally support any incarnation of the idea. 7. This last one is just something we need to be aware of collectively as staff. Going afk for extended periods of time or going SSD as a limited or single slot roles is not permitted. We have had to crack down on this of late. Allowances are definitely made for players that have internet issues or power issues but if it becomes a consistent problem then you need to start considering that before you join. We can and will take administrative action to players that consistently afk/ssd without cryoing.

Well now you've gone ahead and burned this particular bridge. You where almost out the door nicely. You would have been fired had you not resigned. Complaint is....resolved? The initial contract is staying denied for reasons that delta stated and i am upholding because they are actually reasonable. Old contracts will have to be examined. If they do not fit in with the new criteria i can understand removing them but hnnng grandather clause. I will see what abosh thinks. locking and archiving fml.

It is exceedingly inappropriate to cull additional contracts whilst your judgement over the status of a single contract is being questioned. You're being overly hostile and incredibly rude in this complaint. I do not know why you're taking this so personally. a complaint, even a frivolous one is an opportunity to engage in a reasonable dialogue about why you made the decision you made. If the other side is being flippant or egregiously acting in bad faith then thats on them and all it will do is make it easy for me to go "yeah you definitely made the right call here" This is reasonable and absolutely your call to make as one of the people that handle antag contracts. I agree with your reasoning here and you have a good reason to deny the initial contract. Theres serious issues with everything else however and now this complaint is not as easy as it could have been.

Locking and archive. Warning deemed valid.

The letter of the rules appears to be on prate's side here hive. Coalf summed it up a lot more eloquently than i could have. Looks pretty justified to me.

Ill check this over and make a call tomorrow sometime. I was going to last night but work kept me later a lot longer due to someone calling out. Got some stuff to take care of IRL.

locking and archiving.

Warning looks pretty valid to me given doc's response here. looks pretty straight forward.

Lets all just appreciate for a moment i am arguing for a change that will make me kill LESS people. I want people to sit still like any reasonable and unarmed person would when i aim a fucking gun at them. Holy shit. this. I do not necessarily want the mechanic brought back as it was. i am fine with a tweak or a compromise and there have been PLENTY of good suggestions in this thread. .,,,u wot m9? You're god damn right i expect people to surrender. Security or armed individuals are an exception. I absolutely expect an engineer to do what the fuck i say because if he doesn't he WILL die.

This would be great too. the crosshairs being visible is important in my opinion.

I dont want to continue to fight! i want to take someone hostage! The aim mechanic is intuitive in that it effectively communicates "HEY BUDDY DO NOT MOVE!!" and then i can go from there. Unfortunately it relies on THEM not doing something dumb to trigger being shot. Once they do that they no longer have the aim reticle on them. NOW it becomes a situation of "this guy has shot me and im no longer being aimed at OH SHIT I BETTER RUN" And then i laser them into crit and then they spend the rest of the round in dead chat As much as i like killing people even i think that is shitty. The point is the aim mechanic is so ingrained in our player base that NOT being aimed at is a potential opportunity to GTFO of dodge. That would probably be fine.

These are the changes that are currently live. I played one round as a ninja and i believe i have found a problem with it. I tried to take an engineer hostage and i aimed at him. The engineer did something to cause the aim function to trigger and he was shot. This drops the aim on him and prevents me from aiming at him again for three seconds. Now when a player sees they are no longer being aimed at i feel its common sense to think "OH NO I BETTER TRY TO RUN HE JUST SHOT ME". this forces me to either let them go or keep shooting and kill or crit them. Neither is a very good option when i am intending to take a hostage. I am not going to pretend it wasnt a bullshit aimbot, it was. At least before this change the aim would stay on them if they messed up and got shot. If the aim is still on them there is a visual indicator that they SHOULD NOT MOVE. I think it needs to be two or three shots before the aim is dropped and then increase the cooldown.

you're making a lot of assumptions. most of them are wrong. Ill just go point by point i guess. Garnascus spawned as a lone-member ERT when he could have brought enough people to personally secure escape from weapons and allow crew to escape. I was originally playing as a roboticist. Not a single person joined the ERT team and i asked in an ahelp if it would be ok for me to ghost and join ERT. At first doc said that would be kind of lame but after nobody joined they figured it would be in the rounds interest if at least one ERT joined. I spawned myself a human because i had missed the window due to me ahelping and needing to find a place to ghost to not be in the way. In particular, as an admin he could have significantly added to the round by allowing dead players to return to the round as an ERT. I am confused why he didn't and elected to go in alone which I feel directly contributed to the murderbony actions at escape. You're just straight up wrong. ERT was called with the admin verb meaning ANYONE could join ERT as long as they where observing. It was called with the admin verb because the station had faxed us evidence of the attempted coup and command potentially being compromised. CCIA at the time signed off on the ERT call. He didn't personally clear up an authoritarian announcement signed by the revhead HoP saying those who attempted to escape would be killed unless cleared by him personally. I dont really know what you mean by this but im going to assume you mean the announcement i made that had jawdats signature on it. I clicked on the command console to make an announcement but i forgot to make sure it was properly logged out and logged in with my ID. I never even noticed jawdats signature was on the announcement until you mentioned it in PMs to doc. He did not provide enough time from a personal warning over comms not to board the shuttle. I disagree. I was operating under the assumption my initial announcement came from me. I ordered security to disarm of weapons many times and i know i said it over the general radio more than once. I also did not start by spamming grenades. I knew jawdat was IC attempting a coup and i knew he was urging people to arm up against me. I came to escape and deconstructed a wall with my RCD to vent it. I vented it first because i know that you have enough time to run out of escape before the lack of air kills you. To my surprise everyone remained seated. that is not my fault.they then boarded the shuttle DESPITE a vacuum and i noticed a miner carrying a locker. the locker opened and out poured a shit load of weapons with some crew scrambling for them. I busted in and threw frag grenades and the rest is history. I left once my frag grenades where done since someone started sniping me and i had seen jawdat fall down a hole. He refused to communicate to my ahelps post round but discussed it internally with the trial mod who handled the complaint. I should be able to ahelp player behavior I believe to be rule-breaking, but because staff actions are not ahelpable, when a staff member makes potentially rule-breaking player behavior, that presents a conflict of interest. I don't feel that enough was done to prevent such a conflict from occurring here (e.g. having other players join the ERT, having another player lead the ERT, perhaps, with communication from CC). I did not refuse to communicate to your ahelps i CANNOT communicate to your ahelps. It is not appropriate for me to respond to an ahelp or an issue that i am directly involved in. Any dialogue we might or might not establish is going to be incredibly one sided. The proper course of action and the course of action i urged doc to tell you was to make a staff complaint and then it can be reviewed by abosh and the facts can be seperated from the fancy. i knew their where revs. I knew jawdat had attempted a coup i knew he was urging people to ignore my order i knew they where ignoring my orders I was trying to force you guys to stay on the station and contained simply because i knew many of you where terrorists to the company and that jawdat and the acting HoS where leading it. I did not have the man power or the fire power to arrest ALL of them. i was trying to quarantine the station.

If heads of staff use the feature in good faith it could work well. I agree that the point of "only one side of an issue is logged". You do not have access to round logs IC so if you get a note against you IC it immediately puts you at a disadvantage even if its wrong. You have appeal it yourself. I do not know if that is healthy for the game. In theory i like the idea.

The ability for heads of staff to attach files or notes to employee records is something i can definitely support. Theres lots of discussion that needs to happen about who can remove them and how they are appealed though. I am not keen on creating more head for staff departments to deal with. i AM keen on giving IA more things to do.