FlamingLily

Simply put, cyborgs do not wear clothes. Why would they need to? They don't need to fit in, they don't have bits, there's no point to it. Why would this be any different for NON-SHELL IPC? Why would they NEED a uniform? If anything, maybe the uniform policy itself might still apply, but "Indecent exposure" wouldn't, leaving grounds for command staff to dictate whether an IPC should wear their uniform or not

Average Venusian self-perception

The Ritual

I somehow managed to totally miss this when I first floated the idea but don't worry I already made a PR that restricted certain alt titles to certain corps (see: you can't play a corporate employed freelance journalist, or an independent corporate reporter)

so i may or may not have forgotten about this but I return... it will become real...

So, I'm curious what's happening with this. Is it going anywhere? Is it stuck in dev hell still or has it ended up in dev "abandoned-behind-the-sofa"?

This was like, probably over a year ago now lmfao where did you even find this Anyway.

From the application alone, I would give this a +1. Goes into fantastic detail and imho clearly shows an understanding of what sets IPCs apart thematically and narratively from the rest of the spur's inhabitants. Having played alongside Frank's characters (tbf, mostly through out of game means, but still) that +1 is cemented permanently. He has a fantastic sense of character and setting, and is able to play a character fantastically. He's an obvious add for the IPC roster.

I think either this, or dramatically streamlining the process for teleporting down (maybe a more permanent one-way trip system that doesn't need constant supervision and access from command staff?) would go a long way to this. The spawning option I can at least see as having an issue if like, the Intrepid ever somehow gets compromised Consider: A movable machine that acts as a permanent teleportation receiver (a la team fortress 2 teleporters) and doesn't need repeat calibration (but in the same vein, MUST be installed on both ends before it can work)

This is something that I think is very important to address, when you're left behind on an Odyssey, it's not just "i don't get to interact with the gimmick" it's "I literally can't do anything this round because even if I weren't interacting with the gimmick the vast majority of my RP opportunities have all gone down to the gimmick and there are like 3 people aboard right now" I have nothing more really to add to this except yes please do more horizon-centric odysseys.

Screenshot taken by @Floggy we do some robot escapage 🫡

I'm here to necropost with my thoughts. I LOVE the idea of IPCs having actual software injuries, and I hope there'll be a way to work that in for non-antag stuff. I don't like the idea of a baseline being the only frame to be able to mix and match parts, that kind of shuts down some character concepts (including one of mine, hence why I don't like it) HOWEVER, I think this idea is salvageable with some kind of organ-rejection analogue, where an IPC of a non-baseline frame has to undergo some form of treatment or diagnostic or something to properly acclimate to the new limb and to idk break in the firmware or some appropriately techy sounding reasoning. I don't like the kinetic charger, it's just free electricity, it doesn't really make sense. I think it would be neat if the unique frame traits were actual components that could get damaged (see: Shells and synthskin) Also, and I'm spitballing without a real idea here, but Ion Storms.......... could be used..... for something IMHO, the only time-critical thing about IPC health should be their batteries (or external sources of damage). Making IPCs take damage over time from any source is honestly too close to being a retexture of organic medical. If you really want something time-ciritcal on an IPC, software injuries/viruses sounds like a good way to do it that wouldn't be too commonly seen in normal combat (and so wouldn't infringe on the whole organic schtick) People have been saying "Hard to kill, easy to disable" about IPCs and I 100% agree, with an addendum: This makes them low priority both for a hostile force (deal with a component and you can probably safely ignore it) and for the horizon itself (it's not dying, it's just a bit beat up). I think having IPCs be kind of low priority on the medical/combat front (while still being engaging) is a good niche that organics don't have (and narratively quite potent)

I know I've already commented on this and perhaps it's bad form to leave another comment but my previous one detailed why IRs aren't really working for what I see them as: that being the ultimate IC tool for conflict resolution/character development, but I kind of didn't address the elephant in the room. Are IRs used as IC conflict resolution and do they operate as such? Or, are they used as OOC rule/tone/believably enforcement and operate as such? To me, while I believe they should be the former... they're not. They feel far more like OOC judgements, as much has been pretty clearly stated in the thread thus far. And, as many people have stated, this is a bad thing. Instead of going on a longwinded textwall i'm just going to put my thoughts in dot points. An OOC judgement should never be framed as an IC one. Even if the intent of an IR is to be IC, they're clearly being interpreted by the users as OOC, and that alone signals that a change is necessary. Clear division between OOC and IC is ESSENTIAL to healthy RP, and the current IR scheme does not support that. They can technically be appealed, but the scheme feels half-baked. The dedicated CCIA appeals process is purely IC, which means you can't raise matters of procedure, et cetera (the procedure is also extremely obscured and unclear, anyhow). You CAN raise a staff complaint, if an OOC matter arises (and somehow, you learn of it), but this is leaving the realm of IRs entirely, now. CCIA is an entirely different team from the main moderation team. I don't mean this at all as an insult or a criticism against any members of CCIA or CCIA generally, and I certainly don't mean to imply CCIA is in any way misusing their power or anything. To me, there's just something weird about there being a completely adjacent staff team who work on a very similar topic area to the main staff team and yet share none of the policies and hierarchy etc. I will admit I don't really know how the staff teams are structured here but, I'm sure this point is at least somewhat applicable.

As a long time engineering player (It's been my first job on multiple ss13 servers, including here, and I've taken it to the point of being CE), I 100% agree with the intention of the proposal here. Now it's time to break down each numbered point. 1. I absolutely think that ATs should be the first responders of Engineering. IMO, a "normal" (read: a calm ss13 round) emergency response to an engineering emergency (whether it be a breach or a fire) should be: ATs are the first ones on scene, extinguish any fires and stabilise any breaches via inflatables. They're the damage control team. Then the engineers come in to fix the damage, to patch the breaches and clear out the ashes. Now, I don't think this should be a HARD ruling, I think engineers should still be allowed to respond to breaches and things, but the "protocol" is that ATs are the ones that should be first on the scene. 2. I think removing ATs from RCON and power monitoring is fine, I also think letting them keep power monitoring is fine. There is an Atmosphere Monitoring program that the CE has access to which has remote monitoring and control of all the air alarms on the ship. I don't think ATs should have access to that program (unless they already do, in which case ignore this point), due to the remote control feature, but a neutered version of the program that only has the monitoring functions wouldn't be amiss. 3. I disagree over ID locking most atmospherics equipment. I think sneaky has a really good point, and that this is probably something skills would (or should, if they don't on release) handle. Especially with how prevalent atmos devices are in non-engineering contexts (fuelling shuttles, etc.) I BELIEVE that air alarms can be unlocked and used by any engineering staff, and assume APCs are probably the same. I'm not 100% sure that restricting them is for the best, but I do think it's worth a deeper consideration. Or, I'm wrong, and they're only accessible by the relevant job and disregard this. 5. I agree with limiting Shield Gen to engineer (though maybe, again, via skills as opposed to ID? This one I could go either way) 6. I disagree. I think this is too high value of an area to justify having open access like that, and honestly, if something goes wrong you can just ask a command staff member. If there's none, then things are probably so deadpop that everyone's at the bar anyway. In any case, I also agree with sneaky. I agree with most of these changes, but they should be considered in the context of imminent skills update

Having been in the discord discussion that triggered this post, and having defended the IR process a bit during it, I've had some time to think and have changed my mind. To me, there is one huge issue with IRs that make their current situation unappealing. They don't feel like they're in character actions. They feel like a staff sit on a Gmod DarkRP server. Maybe that's harsh, but that's the impression I've come away with. You go to a secluded place on the map, give a testimony bound by many OOC rules (see: lying), wait a while for silent staff deliberations, and sometimes come away with a character being deleted, suspended, job changed, or something else that while sure, might be a story moment, most often just feels like an OOC penalty because it changes the way you play, usually in a way you don't like. As it stands, I like the concept of having a way to report particularly egregious issues up to Corporate, to call in The Big Dogs, et cetera. I like the concept because the concept introduces the possibility for these being big story moments for characters, their narratives, their lives and experiences. Roleplay is fundamentally the collaborative creation of a bunch of narratives and character arcs, and having a serious punishment levied by corporate can easily be a defining story moment for a character. The problem is that an IR and its results aren't performed in a way to be a story moment. They're not designed in such a way to facilitate the story that the Offender's player is trying to tell, nor are they designed in such a way to have any storytelling involvement from any party. I've made an IR before, and thinking on it now, I think I regret doing it, because it shut down what otherwise might have been an interesting inter-character conflict (i mean, said other character also dying didn't help... R.I.P. Kei Nakai), but the point is that what might've been an interesting avenue for character development and storytelling turned into a few borderline OOC interviews over the span of a week and a week long suspension, just because it made the most sense for my character to make an IR at the time. The fact that no parties involved have any sway in the matter at all (no, I don't agree that the interviews are sway in the matter) is, in my eyes, the main thing that turns an IR from a storytelling device into a pseudo-administrative action. I also believe there's a very real possibility of IRs being misinterpreted as being placed in the service of an OOC grudge against the offender's player (and not their character) (or, perhaps more worrying, the possibility of an IR actually being placed for a grudge). While I'll freely admit that misusing the IR system is probably pretty rare, I do think that the perception that it can be misused is maybe not as rare as it seems. So how do we fix this? Personally, I think the writing's on the walls of this thread. People have fun when they agree OOCly. People tell compelling stories when they communicate about the direction of those stories. Communication, agreement, discussion, all of these are VITAL to a healthy roleplay environment, and these are what the IR system is lacking. It's unusual, if not frowned upon, to talk with the "other" side of an IR about that IR on an OOC level. It's especially non-standard to talk with the CCIA staff member OOCly about anything more than interview times. If we can figure out a way to bring that level of communication back into the IR process, to let people discuss the desired outcomes of their characters from the IR, I think that'll make IRs actually engaging as an avenue for character development and storytelling. People don't like IRs because they don't like losing the control of their stories. That is, to me, the core of the issue. (All of this assumes that IRs are in character and a storytelling element, and not an OOC staff punishment. If they're an OOC staff punishment, I think it's been handled in a really poor way.) I also agree with Fluffy, that the existing duality of punishments (those being purely roleplay/ignorable things like reprimands, retraining, fines, whatever, versus suspensions/demotions/terminations) aren't necessarily that engaging, and I think letting the involved parties talk about possible punishments would help to introduce some more interesting scenarios. Also, to put it plainly, the fact that IRs aren't something anyone can see the results of just makes them a bit boring? I think making outcomes OOCly viewable would make things much more interesting, even just that by itself.

Just finished a shift with XO Kari, and I have to say, HUGE +1 from me. We had an offship dock for medical care but it was too little too late, and Kari was there speaking with the offship crew and coordinating with medical, getting documents and reports and just all around doing the types of things you'd expect an XO to do (while the captain stood back and watched). It was fantastic RP and really made things feel way more important than the usual.

This isn't something I had even considered but yeah, a full (attempted) murder charge is kind of a big deal whereas something timed generally has less sway so I think it would be good to have something more severe than standard Assault without the connotations of murder

Earlier today, at the time of writing, we had a round where a fight broke out between two characters. One character attacked the other, causing damage so severe that said second character suffered brain damage and memory loss. Myself, and the other members of security at the time, naturally were the ones to impose charges. Except, we didn't really know what charges to impose. Obviously, battery and minor assault didn't apply. Manslaughter didn't either, as no one had died (and you can't have "Attempted Manslaughter"). So, we were stuck between two charges. Assault, which I personally feel is insufficient for injuries of that severity. And Attempted Murder, which I personally feel doesn't quite fit with the whole intention and premeditation thing. Minor assault covers any injuries that leave no lasting damage. A few punches, a minor fight. If you don't really need medical care to fix it, it's minor assault. Regular Assault therefore covers every other non-fatal injury that can possibly be inflicted. This can include anything from a single stab with a knife to dismembering a person with said knife (as long as the victim survives). To me, those two acts can't logically be bundled into the same offence. It's a bizzare state of affairs and although the confusion probably comes up quite rarely, I still think it's worth examining. The exact specifics of the charge (time, class, whatever) i'm not sure of, but my gut instinct is to say identical to Assaulting a head of staff. 300 tier, 20 min standard offence, 40min + tracker for repeat offence

Old suggestion but I have grown extremely motivated to comment on this after reading the whole thing. This proposed change is, IMO, bad. This is a change that would stifle player creativity and character narratives. Hazels, as a class of character, are designed around identity. Who are they? What does it mean to be part of a mass-produced line of property? My Hazel is entirely built around the topic, and I genuinely think if I was forced to change its name due to a ruling like this, the character would no longer be playable as the whole identity crisis of being a Hazel would be invalidated. Comparing this to the edict breaker thing - that's not something that stifles character options. Someone creating an edict breaker who maintains their surname is allowed to do so, and by doing so they are introducing a trait of their character that can be used for storytelling: that they're publicly and openly an enemy of the empire of Dominia. This proposal doesn't do that, it basically just says "You can't play a self-owned Hazel." This doesn't introduce any avenues of roleplay or storytelling, because this rule isn't really something you can break in character due to the way that self-ownership is set up. It's simply an OOC rule.