Fluffy

You need to be 13+ to register to byond, and consequently play Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is PG12 rated, it has an human sacrifice on an altair complete with close caption of the hand of the shaman going into the ribcage of someone (blood included), pulling the heart out, before - while still alive - being lowered into flames and burned alive. The movie is PG12(A), 1 year less than what you need to even register to play SS13, and that's for the standards of 40 something years ago Most rounds are secret, most of the intensity of them is up to what the antagonist(s) want to do with it, you can have peacemercs that at some switch and decide to engulf you and all your friends with flames from above, or do a purge of the ship because the negotiations didn't went as they wished, or they were double agents, or the traitor decides to lure you in, put you to sleep and remove all your limbs or whatever else he pleases, you can do nothing to avoid it; you opted in when you joined the round, just like you opt in to see our lobby arts when you join the lobby Neither are our lobby arts 100% about being killed, not even the majority is; so we should be set What does a new player think when they first join aurora and see lobby art of bayonet hand, a serial killer wielding a bloody bayonet on a casino? What about the two cats with rifles, smoking, in a destroyed house? "For the king victory or death" one? The zora one with a high power sniper rifle? I guess we really are IS12 with aliens after all, to the new players, strange noone said anything about those... (and no, we're talking about impressions, what they are referring to to us, that already know the lore, has no bearing on the impression, which is the argument I'm disproving) I'm not sure it could be considered a solution, but more variety usually is better (up to a point) so I don't see anything to lose in doing that either way

We are a SS13 server where people get shot, drugged, beaten, stabbed, burned, hanged and what have you Voting for dismissal

Shimmer is correct, there's barely enough content for one player, let alone two, especially if they are split in responsibility, so I don't believe this change to be beneficial for the gameplay of anyone, syntetic crew in need of repair included Voting for dismissal

Having tajara being able to run up it and hide has always sounded funny to me, especially if they can't get down on their own and you need to go with a ladder to help them down

For what it's worth, I don't think it add much if any value as an option, not to mention the ever-looming threat of shell waifus befalling upon us Either way, with Bear vote for dismissal, which is the head of CCIA, this suggestion might aswell be dead already

They look different because they are different, both in lore and mechanics, ontop of needing to account for the rendering of accessories/suits, inhand objects and whatnot that would be a lot of work for essentially nothing. It would literally take less time to draw new IPC sprites that conform to what we currently expect than to code in all the exceptions to reuse the borg sprites on them. Voting for dismissal.

Merged therefore implemented Locking and archiving

You mean the "militarizing"? Yea, all of that was making sense in a paramilitary structure, where everyone know how to hold a gun and use it, and could be made to become part of the fighting force if needed. It doesn't in a civilian ship where your cook knows how to cook and maybe pull the fire alarm when the space carp tries to make him its meal Now you understand why outcrying the "militarization" etcetera was a stupid thing that was done. We however have the motto "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", people played the game, and are now discovering the prize they won The point is always the same: They are needed. A cook in a random scenario that doesn't involve cooking, especially if possibly unsafe, isn't None of this outweights that it would be throwing yourself in danger without any need nor reason to, which is against self-preservation and OOC-in-IC motivated

You're missing the key point: They're needed to be there, which is why they're being sent there - someone has to go down the depth and build thing is there because there's something that needs to be built, the sailor is there because the ship needs sailing. A bartender isn't there because in the middle of the somali pirate infested sea there's no compelling need to serve a Manhattan, there's no neurosurgeon, there's no pharmacist, there's no a lot of things that aren't needed to be there, there's only what is needed to be there There is no problem sending eg. engineers if you need a long-term base built on Hivebot Prime or whatever, even if there's a (reasonable) risk, they are needed to do something, so they have a reason to be there, protected by Security - that is the equivalent of what you're indicating in your example You can abolutely build a big plot like the one you're describing, you start with "we needs a party thrown, send down people to setup a party house and prepare a party", at which point the Horizon would send engineers to build it, security to kill xenofauna, mining to clear up the soon-to-be frat house, cooks to cook the party things, bartender to bartender, operations would haul the things needed to and from the horizon etc. etc. - After that, you can pop up with Mechafrost escorted by 3 John Sol, ground the shuttle and take everyone hostage or what have you. You can pick this story apart. Don't. It's just an example On the other hand, investigating facility X for possible crimes against humanity doesn't need a bartender, or a cook, or operations or the likes, and it's possibly unsafe, so you would send security, possibly an FR, and science if the crime has something to do with scientific research or similar. You'd not send the cook, or the bartender, or an engineer (unless they have to break something open), or operations, in such a story

If the ship is at risk, yes it would make sense to not send them, but that would mean not sending anyone if your home is under threat; you'd deal with whatever is putting your ship at risk first Aside of that it's a choice between the possibly dangerous situation you could walk into and the ship floating in space that is so far known to be safe, you could split your security half and half or you can consider the ship safe enough (also because BCs have their little armory, you can build mechs with weapons etc.) and send them to deal with whatever mission central needs dealt with Neither Mining nor Science are trained to shoot people, mining shoot the PKA on some xenofauna in areas without atmospheric pressure, science at most tries their creations in the firing range. Security is trained to deal with pirates, terrorists, hostage situations, high stress situations, the various different environments and whatnot - think of it as a SWAT team - and have done so, canonically, often. They are your right arm to punch things with

Again, no, the point is that if you aren't needed to do something there, there is no reason you would be sent there unless it's known to be safe, and there's no reason your character would reasonably want to go there either. Security isn't a deathsquad but they're the ones that know how to use guns, have them, have the license to use them, and deal with whatever risk could be present, that's why you send them. A cook, a bartender or the likes has no reason to go to a possibly unsafe zone possibly to his death for absolutely no reason, as he isn't needed there. If the story was "we need to throw a party down here" you would be right the cook and bartender would come down and security probably wouldn't (and this is one of those boredom MKUltra situations where the place is known to be safe), sending them in other scenarios where they aren't needed is a lack of self preservation via OOC-in-IC reasoning. You can pontify all the rationalizations you can dream of ontop of this, until you see Amazon sending their finance accountants in somali-pirates-infested waters it still won't make an iota of sense, they send the sailors needed to keep the ship running and armed personnel to shoot the pirates. I'm confident you can extrapolate to our setting.

Sorry, but no, people are warned/noted when they disregard self-preservation even if they have a good reason to do so, going to a possible ambush, to be swarmed by xenofauna or in the hands of pirates because apparently the crew is bulimic and can't wait the additional 10 minutes it would take to get back on the ship (not to mention you can just send the food down from it) isn't gonna cut it. People wanted, outcried, the civilian feeling/setting up to the moment it became inconvenient to having fun (as if it wasn't already before) and now are trying to circumvent the logical consequence of that, wanting to have the cake and eat it too

I'd like to point out none of this would be an issue if this was a paramilitary ship, as it would make sense to send as many people as possible on ground to not only do their things (build FOB, provide service etc.) but also to have them ready on standby to help in case situations arise On the contrary, trying to push the narrative of the civilian ship, outcrying the "militarization of the Horizon" and the likes cause issues like this where it would make little sense for cooks, janitors and whatnot to be sent to the ground without first making absolutely sure that it's safe (by sending security and maybe medical to pull them out in case it isn't) Only exceptions to this would be scenarios where it's expectable to be boredom MKUltra (a biesel office, some known friendly palace to visit, a known friendly village [...]) or where shit are so fucked the Horizon needs to intervene on it right now else disastrous things would happen (liidra reappeared and needs to be contained, Sol is about to fire some rediscovered superWMDs on Biesel or similar scenario where you have to deal with it right now and you're the only one around that can do it) A cook, a janitor and whoever else on a civilian ship would have little to no reason to go on a possibly unsafe place, possibly to get mauled by the xenofauna, possibly walking into pirates, possibly walking into danger in general, unless he is specifically needed; if anything, this would seem disregarding self-preservation to do so, for a civilian

You are pointing out things that require some non-basically-nonexistent delay between weapon being known to exist and it hitting you, the holster is visible on inspect, the pockets etc. need you to first move your mouse away to get the weapon in hand (which is visible at that point) and then move the mouse over your victim to click it, etc. etc. My implementation was flawed in that it has no time to react before you get hit the first time in that PR, though I thought it would be fine given the need to keep dragging the mouse (thus very slow to keep hitting). The TG implementation would be even worse than that, not only i can activate the energy dagger pen and immediately give my victim the london subway experience with essentially no reaction time left to avoid it, I can keep clicking fast and hit at full speed after the first hit, something my PR didn't allow (you had to either go back and pull the gun out, or keep dragging, both of which adds additional delay ontop of the fire delay). The reply mentions the first shot advantage which both scenario gives you, and here it's even more egregious (if implemented like TG). Of course, we can modify it however we want and you're right this gives a concealability chance in case you're searched, however the suggestion specifically says "an energy dagger like in TGstation" and that's what I have replied to. Other implementations are possible, but I don't see one like TG being accepted (not by me, I would be fine with it, otherwise I would have voted for dismissal).

Unfortunately I do not see it this way, the boot knife requires you to open the slot inventory, go over the slot, right click, extract, then it prints a large text about you pulling out a knife, you have to move the cursor back on your opponent and click it to stab. The TG version of the energy dagger pen (far as I remember) looks just like a pen, if you inspect the person you see it holding a pen; as the attacker, you would put the mouse over your opponent, press activate-in-hand (Z) and click immediately, which is impossible to react to, giving the "first shot" essentially in an invisible way. It could be made in a different flavour that require some activation windup or to do it by some right click verb etc., but at that point it has little value over a boot knife IMHO.

Unfortunately I do not see this as being accepted, as per maintainer discussion in https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/19572#issuecomment-2208855718 "We don't want "invisible weapons" to be a thing since the first shot advantage in SS13 is a big factor in game balance."

A sensor report would tell you that it's a venator-class civilian ship, far as I remember it doesn't tell you that it has 20 cannons strapped ontop of it; as far as the pirates would know, it's a civilian ship that maybe is armed with something to clear hazards in space (if civilian ships all had good armament, the pirates would also have them, they would be out of business otherwise); not to mention, just giving a piece of equipment to a bunch of random people doesn't mean they would use it effectively or get the chance to use it, a somewhat smart pirate would try to approach the ship undetected and board it, at which point your 400mm gun is as good as useless, and since it's presumably full of civilian that would rather have their lifes spared over defending your Amazon Prime™ package, you would just render the cannon inoperable, pocket your bounty and leave

Yes actually

https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/20205

I don't think that's the reason you can't play an ex-SRF, or a primary aposthat of dominia, or one of those investigation religious police dominia use, etc. The headmin can correct me if I'm wrong. This argument works better for my position than yours; if they don't mean anything, and the majority of people who replied either doesn't like them or consider them an active detrimental factor of their enjoyment of the server, we can aswell save ourself the trouble of writing them, doing interviews and whatever else, and just not do them unless it's something actually severe. Also again, you have to choose, either they don't care and the punishment is inconsequential etc., at which point there's no reason to keep them, or they have a chilling effect and do something, at which point you can scroll back and see that that "something" is negative, and we should not do them. You cannot keep both stances at the same time, they are actively contraddicting each other.

You are, as we're talking about OOC enjoyment, that passage only makes sense by playing into the equivocation, try to substitute the sentence with what I wrote and you'll see that it doesn't work. Fair. We already do this, try to roleplay someone that is crazy, or an SRF member, and you'll see. This is a slippery slope, nothing says it would be turned into a breach of the rule, CCIA does not prevent rules from being broken, nor intervenes when actual rules are broken, we can say the SCC doesn't care and it's not against the server rules. Ontop of still being a slippery slope, none of this prevents someone from pressing F1 and saying "uhgm acktually I think this person is breaching the rule about self preservation", at which point you have to handle both an ahelp (with all that you said) and an IR. No, you'd get increasingly harsh punishments, up to being fired (your character deleted), on repeated offenses, which indeed affects you; Also you have to pick one, either it has a chilling effect, or it does not affect you in any way whatsoever. It cannot be both. An investigator canonically do little to nothing, it's just there, how is it losing them money (more than it's already)? If it was not investigating cases canonically, now that'd be losing them money, but canonical cases are few and far between (and that supposes the SCC would care besides the mere appearance that they care if anything bad happens to you, which clearly they do not). If you are drunk in a canon event / investigation and fuck it up, that is entirely on you and that's when I can absolutely see the CCIA hammer come down swinging, same if you fail to perform your duty of generating them money or risk the vessel or similar, but being drunk and calling the Vaurca a stupid bug and otherwise not failing anything? They should do the "yea we'll look into it... sometimes this century". No, it's exactly correct: They are protecting the company (not those people, though it could be a side effect), because they would be liable to pay hefty fines in court if they would admit fault, few things are better than a confession. Vice versa, in corporate dystopia simulator 2466 where Biesel is for all intents and purposes a puppet state and they can just make the issue disappear, they would just shrug their shoulders and tell you they'll look into it (sometimes in this century) and if you don't like it you can resign for anything but bombastic issues or things that would cut their bottom line, which an alien being racism'd isn't. They would tell you to let Security know when it happens until they can look into it. Which is never.

"Bad" IC behavior has no bearing on this, we are talking about OOC enjoyment, antags do "bad" IC behavior all around the clock, and we like them to do it. I'm afraid this step relies on the duality of the meaning of "bad", aka the ambiguous context, because otherwise it wouldn't have made sense to point this out, "They do things that are ICly bad but give us OOC fun and make the game fun" wouldn't work swapped here. This passage relies on the equivocation of the two contexts to work. I think very few people want to completely remove CCIA here, there's an entire sea of options between "it's essentially perfect as is" and "we need to remove it", with noone advocating for the later as far as I can tell, at least here. This is a slippery slope. Ontop of that, that we'd need to be forced to enact said process is in itself ungrounded, an easy counterexample (that was also already presented in this very thread) is the moderation team handling cases that fall too much out of line, something they already do to some extent. Suspend him, say that he needs therapy, mandatory medical treatment and similar are options. Depending on the specifics this could be something that CCIA could actually look into if it is just annoying, I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. So... clearly stating what the rules mean... Is in your idea a bad thing? I'm not sure how I'm supposed to interpret this otherwise? Usually, being clear with the rules is what you want to do when you want people to follow them, being unclear is what you want to do when you want to have free reign and be as little accountable as possible because noone can really be sure what exactly the thing means, so noone can really show that you did or didn't apply it correctly. Responding to an ahelp or similar overall takes less workload than reading an IR, making up a response, scheduling interview(s), and so on, in total man-hours, I believe. Also, as above, noone seems to be advocating for the complete eradication of any possible form of CCIA. This is something I don't think anyone here would have an issue with? Again, I don't believe the point is the complete eradication of CCIA, but a reworking of it. It is also the name of the thread. The rest of that answer seems to keep going off the assumption the request is to completely remove it, which it isn't, so I don't think I need to address it further (?), with the exception of: So, does it have a chilling effect, or do we want that behaviors from the characters? Both cannot be true at the same time, if we're chill-effecting it, we are discouraging those behaviors ----------- Aside from that, riddle me this: We have a megacorporations conglomerate that spans most of the known universe, with control over entire governments, planets, arguably entire species; their long arms can fuel and stop wars, their untold number of vessels move people and resources across the entire galaxy at superluminal speeds. To be employed by the conglomerate is to be part of untold billions of employees from hundreds if not thousands of planets, most of which corporate controlled to some extent; The conglomerate sends thousands of civilians to battle to secure their corporate interests, commits crimes against humanity, the mere SCC flag on a ship is sufficient for any vessel of any faction to not want to as much as interfere with it (I still feel sorry for 3rd party ships), the conglomerate can field armies of people and has the headquarter permanently stationed with two frigades to protect it, an entire defense system comparable to a battle cruiser, and an entire paramilitary ERT as a third defense system; ontop of that, the conglomerate has an entire paramilitary contractor group as part of it, which is used by "[...] those who quickly need an expendable force to do their bidding" and are "[...] always holding at least some influence in any war-torn region of space"; the SCC has also little to no regard against the risk of losing entire vessels, as seen eg. when we battled alongside the Icarus and all available vessels that managed to arrive in time against the Southern Fleet Administration to defend the Odin against the equivalent of an in-universe Tzar nuclear bomb. How am I supposed to believe that they would care about John Tajara being called a stupid cat by John Sol and given a slap, and they wouldn't just shrug, say it never happened, and that if you don't like it you can resign as there's a million more people ready to take your job, that they would send someone all the way from the Odin (Biesel) to wherever this particular vessel (the Horizon) is, burning phoron that literally costs more than your life, for anything short of something that would either compromise the mission or the ship? Do you want me to believe that they would so much care about John Investigator, one of the untold billions of employees in one of the untold millions of facilities, that got drunk and slurred some lizards on comms? Meanwhile, in reality, far less powerful corporations don't care about far worse things? That Blizzard is supposedly still trying to find out who steals breast milk from the company fridge, that EA hid far worse allegations I won't list here against some of their employees, but the SCC, with all the power and scale, practically unbound by laws, in corporate dystopian capitalism simulator 2466, would investigate those?

I don't think your response addresses any of the points that were made, at least not any of the point that seems shared by the other replies I see. I do not want to make a super long post detailing how your answer doesn't address them, I think I can briefly summarize it as: It is addressing points noone made, you point out things about believability, you point things about recurse, you point out accountability of characters and IC standards, and so on. None of this addresses the point. This is a game we play to have fun, and none of this is OOCly fun. You point out all those things and others as unchanging features of reality, while they are just present because we want them, and if we have to choose between having more fun and keeping them, we can just aswell choose to have more fun. Which is what multiple people have pointed out in various aspect to be the issue here: It isn't fun, it's not entertaining, it fails to do the thing you want from a game: entertain. It doesn't matter if you think it helps enforcing the standards of the setting, even granting it actually does and we actually want them to be exactly like this, none of that addresses the point that this is an unfun experience, and according to the vast majority of those who replied so far, a net negative of the server as a whole, and as we play to be entertained and have fun, this is the exact opposite of what you want things to be there for. If I make mining require to clean up the rocks with a brush for 1 hour a shift to get gold, it doesn't matter that it is realistic, it doesn't matter that it helps enforce the standards of the setting of corporate dystopia, none of that solves that it would be a frustrating, unfun experience we'd be better off without, and I'd have to either find a way to make it fun or remove it. This, is what is being asked for in the end, to make it fun; if not only it's unfun in itself, but it also removes fun from other things, it's inexcusable to keep it in the game, on an OOC level. The universe, the lore, the mechanics, the server, modmins, CCIA and whatever else exists because we want to play a game and have fun / be entertained in doing so. We do not exist for the purpose of representing the Auroraverse, the Auroraverse exists to entertain the players (players here includes anyone who plays including staff, I do not mean only the non-staff). And CCIA is not only failing at that, but making other things worse at doing this, as was indicated by multiple people.

My opinion on IRs is almost completely negative, for the following reasons: 1) You can only lie to defend yourself or choose not to comment, at which point we might aswell hand out the logs if all I have to do is telling you what happened or just say "nuh huh I'm not talking" (which also means you know the person isn't innocent, otherwise why would I refuse to comment, I'd just tell you the truth). How this rule isn't an OOC-in-IC influence/consideration is anyone's guess, because to me it looks very much like it's breaking the OOC-IC separation if you can't even lie to protect your friend/boss/whatever. My suggestion on this: You can lie, but only to defend someone, aka you cannot lie to have someone punished, only to avoid your friend/colleage/boss being punished. If you get caught lying, you get punished for lying too, so it's not risk free, prisoner dilemma etc. etc. 2) The punishments are just boring, so there's no fun to be gained by them, for what I saw, it's either "you got a fine and some retraining" (noone cares), "you are demoted to play something you might not like to play and if you want your character back you better play it" (not only boring, but antithetical to an healthy environment to have someone forced to play something he doesn't want to, with a character hostage) (possibly I misunderstood and you just need to pretend you did that job for X time, but still not fun either way), or "we have just deleted your character, sorry" (this can be fun, depending on the circumstances, but I don't think it should be available outside of events and/or with the consent of the playing player to do so). My suggestion on this: I want the SCC to be more dystopic ICly and less fun police OOCly, demotions and deletions have to be agreed upon or spurred from canon events, introduce fun punishments like idk shock collars if you assault someone, that said person can trigger (with reason) if you try to do it again, loyalty implants, I don't know I'm just spitballing here, but fun things. 3) I remember someone (I think Bear?) once said something on the likes of "if we don't punish these things ICly we'd punish them OOCly", I don't think I can put into words how wrong it felt to read it to me, I don't think this tool/thing should be used to punish people, we have moderators for that, it should only be an extension of the gameplay fun, I think seeing it in the optic of "punishing people" is disheartening if not outright concerning, maybe I misremember something about this because I still feel incredolous by just re-reading this, but I am fairly convinced to remember this thing, that's the moment I changed my mind from CCIA as per current use/implementation just not being something I am interested in engaging with, to it being a detrimental factor for the server. My suggestion on this: Don't. IC only, for fun only. 4) Complete opacity, we do not know what happens with other characters IRs, I think this sealing makes them less interesting as we don't OOCly know what happens with them. My suggestion on this: Make the outcome (OOCly) known, ICly not known, like the report themselves, and the interviews and relevant documentation too. 5) Your trial happens secluded from all sights, and you can't participate in them, nor really be defended. You just give an interview answering some questions and you get an email later possibly saying your character is being deleted (see the point above). My suggestion on this: I heard a good argument (also from Bear) that doing a process kinda thing would be heavy on the CCIA team, and as much as I'd like them with lawyers and all, I understand his concerns/point on this, I'd however like to have it as an option for major crimes or similar, eg. combining it with my points above: "Yes, I am ok with my character being deleted for this, however I want a public trial" kinda thing, I think it's something that would both benefit in terms of canonicity (something canon to do), fun, and rare enough that it wouldn't be heavy on the CCIA team to do. I do not know the details and they can be discussed to see what would work for everyone, but some sort of trial option happening once in a while would be in my opinion a nice addition. Corporate lawyers also often exchange emails etc. for minor things, maybe have the option to have someone playing a lawyer character and negotiate etc. with CCIA (via the IR thread, pretend-be email)? That seems another possible avenue for this. I possibly have other ideas, but that's what I can muster to remember about it at this time (6AM local time), if I recall more, I'll add them later.

How is the player supposed to interact with this, though? You don't have access to centcomm as a normal player