Fluffy

Sure, it would basically be Luminescent forthcoming swearing at random moments (technical jargon would be coprolalia), the rest of the gestalt reprimand it, and apologize; coprolalia is associated in the popular culture to be the main characteristic of Tourette, in reality it's a relatively uncommon symptom (<10% of cases), though it's supposed to be fun in the context. Why do the rest of the gestalt do not expel Luminescent forthcoming? Because they are protective towards it.

BYOND Key: Fluffyghost Character Names: Species you are applying to play: Diona Have you read our lore section's page on this species?: Yes Please provide well articulated answers to the following questions in a paragraph format. One paragraph minimum per question. Why do you wish to play this specific race: The concept of an union of nymphs, essentially immortal in their plurality, on a quest to acquire wisdom and knowledge is interesting, and I'd like to expand my narrative avenues. It's time to scratch that itch again. Identify what makes role-playing this species different than role-playing a Human: Diona are usually played in a gestalt form and represent a group of nymphs, which can either have one or more nymphs delegated to do some specific task (eg. talking, moving/being an arm, take decisions) or they can talk all at the same time; being a group of nymphs, there is also an often diverging view on specific element, as each nymph forms opinions and display biases independently of each other (cognitive obstacles), diona can also separate and rejoin together, learn by drinking blood, eat to generate biomass, are very nomadic and conditionally pacific, variably discriminated in some form across the galaxy, feeds and heals off radiations (light or otherwise). Character Name: Eternal Cataloguer and Observer of the Sufferers Please provide a short backstory for this character ECOS is a Gestalt Cyclops form in their Geras stage consisting of six nymphs with a scholarly song mind type who was assembled in Biesel in 2405. ECOS spent most of its early days in Biesel, unemployed and homeless, roaming the streets in the most impoverished locations to talk to people at the margins and lower classes of the Bieselite society, cataloging their experiences for (hopefully) eternity, and learning about their lives in doing so, often via blood sampling. This gave ECOS a pluralistic slew of viewpoints, which in turn gave it a moltitude of perspectives that, in turn, gave it an accentuated epistemic humility, preferring a poststructuralist approach to the matters rather than an essentialist or imperative one. As with Coeus for Geras and Penuma, ECOS during their Coeus phase tried to provide relief for said people by working menial day to day jobs inside Biesel and using whatever funds it could grasp to help said people, usually with food, clothes and medicines. It eventually joined the TCFL for a year and half when it was formed in 2459, in order to obtain citizenship, working low-level non-combat position due to its Coeus stage, where it ended up mantaining and cleaning the armory; it eventually obtained citizenship in 2460. ECOS went back to try to help people by joining the Interstellar Aid Corps and, in 2461, was present on Adhomai's Northern Harr'masir in the PRA territory to provide aids to civilians in the area. When the New Kingdom attack on the western section near Baltor engaged with artillery, while ECOS was trying to run away from the zone and bringing injured civilians towards safety, a sharpnel hit ECOS's "Luminescent forthcoming" nymph, gravely injuring it and causing a potent echo chamber effect across the Gestalt. While the rest of the Gestalt have more or less recovered from it completely, except from Gestalt-wide uneasiness when absorbing emotional information related to said events, Luminescent forthcoming developed a cognitive obstacle similar to Tourette syndrome, sometimes using foul language at seemingly random moments. The rest of the Gestalt is very sorry for that, apologize often about it and is very protective towards Luminescent forthcoming. Upon turning into a Geras in 2463, ECOS soon made peace with the need for treatment to preserve mobility and, partially reluctantly, took the job of being a Warden, first in a prison and then aboard the SCCV Horizon, where it works today. What do you like about this character? ECOS is a tragifun ambivalent type of character, who navigated in the often-invisible social strata of Biesel first and (briefly) Adhomai after, a character that tried to help out against the fallout of a systemic, basically insormontabile, obstacle. It can perhaps be considered an iteration on the metanarrative notes of Pontmercy, while the backstory can be seen as serving the same purpose of the book. Luminescent forthcoming serves as an humoristic relief expedient of an otherwise grim narrative, perhaps attributable to an antihero. The combination of the two elements renders an expanded range of possible interactions and representations, allowing a great degree of narrative freedom. How would you rate your role-playing ability? Average, but I think that's usually a question better suited for others to answer, not the person himself. Notes: The title joke is that Ammonium Nitrate is used both as a fertilized and to make explosives.

Kira is fun to interact with, so I am in support for the trial (+1)

Escalate, in the context I meant is engagement-wise, as in, not something that starts and remains stealthy, not necessarily escalate as in bloody. I agree with this, and I believe it's also a problem that they aren't very much clear, for what I was able to see, they seem applied more on a "vibe" base rather than according to what is written down, and fairly inconsistently in so. I believe this disadvantages the antags most (but really affects everyone, in particular also newcomers) because, due to their very nature, their are both in the position of toelining them most and under the intense scrutiny of near everyone for when they do so.

The choice between the two current candidates was pretty hard to make, but I have in the end decided to support this application over the other, so you have my +1 too, and good luck!

I agree that the failure to try to narrate an escalating story should be addressed in some way, but I also do not believe that a punitive approach is the correct way to do that (nor much of anything else, barring intentional malicious grief, really), instead, interventions methods such as positive behavior support should be used as much as feasible, as their effectiveness is very well supported even and both against severe misbehavior (McClean and Grey, 2007) (NHS, 2015) and challenging environments (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2021) (Gagnon, 2018) (Polinsky, 2017). This would also work twice the length: Both nurturing an healthy antag (or players in general, really) pool, teach them what to do and how to do it, and avoid unnecessary frictions/restrictions and removals of players, which, considering our fairly limited player pool, would indeed be optimal. So, while I do agree with the proposal that interventions would be beneficial, I do not think said interventions should be with notes/warns/bans in any but the most hopelessly egregious cases (this goes for most of our other rulings too, but that's a story for another topic).

This was polled in And was rejected by both community and maintainers, do you believe there was an opinion shift on the topic since then, so that a new poll would yield a different result? I believe one would not play surgeon because, if there is a physician and is not overwhelmed, treatments in the GTR are expected to be left to said physician; it is also possible to introduce additional characterizations, too, such as a medication chart on who can use certain medications, which I would propose in three tiers, tier one would be FRs and pharmacists, tier two would be surgeons and psychiatrist, and tier three would be physicians; I can go in more detail on it if anyone is interested. In regards to a nurse slot, I would potentially agree with it, though that seems it would be subjected to the same 'why would I just not play physurgeon?' question in the scenario you propose, how would you address it?

Just mirroring the question from Faye's app for you, too: What changes would you make to borgs, lore and mechanical-wise, assuming you had complete freedom? I do not know if the synthetic team covers the AI role too, but if it does, what would you change about it (the AI)?

Coldsmith, Xandru and Mbanza are based, they are generally bound to make the round more fun in one way or another, and I'd love to see what awaits us on the based character command side, therefore, I support ( +1 ) the trial.

Can you elaborate on the reasons of this? What changes would you make to them, lore and mechanical-wise, assuming you had complete freedom? I do not know if the synthetic team covers the AI role too, but if it does, what would you change about it (the AI)?

Indeed, if this still works and it works for rev, and loyalists alone can setup gimmicks, I can see why this would be considered feasible too, i believe however that a loyalists-only story would be rather dull compared to just rolling another gamemode, as an example, we recently got what I suppose to have been a loyalists-only rev round and, apart from strictly enforcing the regulations (Logan was forced to wear an uniform, along with the rest of sec) and people being arrested for smoking, not much really happened for what I recall; the reason that makes me more wary of keeping a loyalists-only option versus a revolutionary-only one can be perhaps summed as following: While I can see both the crew and Security rising up to oppose a revolution that threaten or opposes the SCC, in virtue of both working for and financially depend on them, I believe characters would be quite reluctant to oppose the SCC and the on-ship command (in the form of loyalists), and to a certain extent Security, while non-antagonists in a meaningful way, on the virtue of the characters likely wanting to remain employed or deciding to resign and "go back home" or similar, what do you think? Another possible option could be to see if any CCIA/staff member is online, and having it act as a loyalist via centcomm faxes/announcements, this could provide a "puppet master" to fight against as the on-ship revs, and this could also be extended to the auto-balancing that Gecko was talking about, if your character do not fit the role thematically, you could OOC also play as a loyalist that sits in some sector post and sends faxes, thus being a proxy loyalist, thoughts?

Sure, but we'd still have two issues: 1) What if they do not? 2) What if noone latejoins with them enabled? So I think that, while a rev gimmick without loyalists would still work (you just have to be extreme with what you want to rile up the crew) and you can in that case (→ the case in which there's no loyalists) have the popup for the latejoiners, the case where you have loyalists but no revs cannot feasibly (→ reliably and consistently) develop an interesting round, and should have another solution that doesn't rely on the possibility that someone might latejoin and accept to save the day What do you think? (∨) Any proposal in that regard?

The problem I see is, if noone clicks yes to the popup, you'd still have the issue I believe that a round can still work with only revolutionaries, the main issue is a loyalists-only one, no?

Malika is fun to interact with and, as far as I was able to see when she was interim XO, helpful, so a +1 for the trial from me!

Implemented (with preference setting) in https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/16329

I see what you mean, having an alt-title that covers both roles could address all of that at once, what do you think? After all, in the lore we can poof into existence and bend whatever we please, right?

I wonder: why not give those tools and job to the Psychiatrist? Given how limited they are in actual mechanical tools/role, they're supposedly there to try to make everyone feel better, and they are also supposedly doctors themselves, would it not be better to give them an additional option of something they can do?

I have applied the suggestion and the PR is up: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/16266 I took the liberty of phrasing the in one way that made sense to me, but if you have a better prompt than what I wrote, I can update it in the PR.

You are right, but I had a good reason to do so: the points were both to show the natural resistance difference between two species, and to show that one could get away and hide/escape/save itself far more easily than the other, so I had to spawn something that shoot at me while I do so. The antags do not have access to a turret, but the amount of shots was not the point, the difference was: "specie A takes X% more to die than specie B", whether it's 10/20 - 25/50 - 100/200 etc. due to the difference in damage of the specific weapon wasn't what I wished to show, the difference between the two species was. Bogey just means "A radar or visual air contact whose identity is unknown.". That is the MTBT definition, which I have picked to name unknown (due to them not being completely identified yet) radar contacts. Could it give a better name? Possibly, but changing the name is a trivial operation and (if memory serves me well) the time investment of talking about it in that moment, while I had to tackle other issues to get the mechanic out of the door, to have the mechanic playtested, was probably simply not worth the time in that moment... If I wanted to just have things my way, why would I spend time to create videos to show the development of the feature, its working and progression? I put them out specifically for it to be discussed. Thank you for the compliment, I have and am applying the feedbacks from my command whitelist application on my new characters that I make (and in a non-denaturating capacity on old ones)- I have worked on punctuation, capitalization of the terms, formatting... I even made a bartender and a chaplain based on the feedbacks I got there, despite absolutely disliking the gameplay of either... I have personally recovered your bridge remap PR, despite preferring the old layout, because that had a statistically significant positive reception. I could have left it closed and to likely die, but I went out of my way to save it up and have it implemented, against my very own preference. That is the degree in which I value democracy here. it really feels unfair to hear that you guys think I don't listen to feedbacks, even when I can show to have not only listened to, but specifically implemented the suggestions you guys gave, even against my own personal preference, and without even the need nor expectation to do it.

One would think that trying to discuss the merits and demerits of each point, scrutinize each argument from multiple angles and trying to reason to try to get as close as possible to an objectively good outcome would be considered a positive thing. One would also think that it should be pretty obvious that it is impossible to ascertain consensus based on a limited poll size, even more when that poll size is under a selection bias (sorry to break it for you, most players don't care about looking in our discord chat, or visiting the forum, apart from when they're essentially forced to, eg. for whitelists or ban appeals). I am more than willing to work with data, otherwise, opinions that do not reach a statistically significant size (we have around 200+ active monthly players, to my knowledge, and 5000+ forum users) are taken for what they are: opinions that either have some logical merit behind, which should be discussed to bring out on which premises they rest and if the opinion stands on some merit that can be ascertained, or the opinion is just that, an opinion, that is like saying "strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream", and is only valuable if there is the data to ascertain that a significant amount of support is present. Opinion's value rests only in the number of people that share it. No matter how fond you are of your opinion, if you can't neither logically nor statistically substantiate it, it holds no intrinsic value for a discussion. This is even worse when they make use of ill defined terms up to interpretation that makes them seem more like attempts at humor (eg. "LRP", "LARP"), which we are filled to the brim with. It is literally impossible to address such feedbacks, what do you expect someone to do, say that what you're telling about your feelings on some matter aren't really how you feel about it? If a feedback is only reciting how someone feels towards something, just restating that you feel differently is considered impolite (as well as it not being an addressing, nor should be), and trying to draw something that isn't subjective to work with is considered not taking the feedback well, that essentially means you are expected not to discuss at all. Following, a list of examples in which I have changed my mind through feedback and discourse, that I remember, and in no particular order: I believe you are simply not used to having any actual debate besides those that aren't more than 10 minutes long, after which one of either side just go "whatever, it's not worth my time and effort" and just gives up. If all of the above is the environment you want to have, that's your prerogative, and you can consider this application withdrawn, as I have no interest in committing my time and effort under such environmental conditions. If, on the other hand, you value trying to be as close as possible to take decisions that are demonstrably good, or at least logically defensible, and in purview of that you want to change my mind on which option best accomplish it, all you need is to bring forth either logically and epistemiologically sound arguments or statistically significant data; I am more than happy to admit to be wrong or that my opinion (preference) just isn't shared by the community. I am more than willing to do, and have in plentiful occasions done, either.

I said that I don't know what to say if a borg or AI encouraging your character to date another makes someone uncomfortable, as it's something you'd intuitively consider to be generally perceived as funny. Additionally, I also said that if that makes you uncomfortable for some reason, you should say so OOC and the other player would be expected (at least from me) to drop it. That is literally the contrary of "you need to get over it". What it also means is that it's something that, in my opinion, should be left up to the players affected and is not in itself an argument that could be made a priori; granting people the highest degree of freedom unless compelling arguments mandate us otherwise is the preferable option, and likewise limiting it on the basis of an assertion that an unspecified amount of people might be uncomfortable with it even while having an option to opt out is an epistemological annihilation, as that argument could be easily asserted for literally anything (eg. having guns in game) and would afford no recourse. With that said, this thread has now reached around 10 people not liking either in part or as a whole the new ion laws, which on the basis of the only statistic that I have access to (the borgs poll) constitute around 5% of the active monthly playerbase, and I consider it statistically significant enough to draw a trend and concede the failure of the user acceptance of the project in its current form. What I'd like to do, would require the ability for active players (not just those that use the forum regularly) to be informed, be able to vote and suggest them, as well as changes in general, but it would need prerequisite projects and discussions for the tools to enable it. As the meme says, I am limited by the technology of my time, so that would need to be put on hold until the necessary tools are in place to enable such a thing, which would (hopefully) be a more powerful instrument for other projects and suggestions too. The PR will be closed, this project can be archived, and my personal thank you to everyone who has contributed to the discussion.

Sure! Can you clarify what do you mean by navigate the environment? I am not sure to understand the question fully and would hate to answer the question with a not-on-point reply that does not cover what you want to know

I believe there to be a clear distinction between saying "this will not be merged with references and if you don't agree with it not being merged due to that you should make a policy suggestion instead of arguing about the policy interpretation here" and "you must not talk about why you used those references specifically", I do not possess the capability to mind read what someone means and I am constrained to reading what is written down. With that said, I am fine with your decision, I have no possible recourse against "the staff is right because it is the staff" and "you should know what is wanted from you beside what what is written means", nor had much hope otherwise given the statistics on staff complains, and it would just be a further waste of time for both me, you, garn/alb and even cybs to proceed hoping on a different outcome on such a premise. I will just take the L, it's not a big deal a warning point that expires in two months, anyways. From my end, that is all, and this can be archived.

I fail to see how you deliberating that the PR will be put on hold if it contains references and suggesting to make a policy suggestion about references if I disagree with it being kept on hold until they are removed would qualify as me derailing the thread by addressing why I have wrote them, I also fail to see how talking about a proposed change in a project, in the project thread, even if it prevents it from being merged, qualify as derailing the thread either. Likewise, I fail to see how a warning, which is by guidelines used to inform users of rules violation, would be acceptably used for something I didn't do, based on a rule that either does not apply (as it's on a different section) or doesn't even exist. The complain is not about something you (in my opinion) should have done and didn't, it's about something you shouldn't and have. I have made the policy suggestion as you have suggested (the first of, since I believe the first point to clarify is if they are even supposed to cover this to begin with, given the wild range of interpretation they are taken to) and I have addressed the questions/misunderstanding on why I have wrote those laws using those references and not something else. Nothing of that is derailing the topic, you talking about removing other laws already present, or the purpose that the ion laws should have, is right against the 5 bullet points section on what the thread was not about. You are not the only one that have done it either, but I am fairly convinced I was the only one warned about such a thing, which I didn't even do (as above). And, on top of all that, you yourself seem to have sprung into action to do it, on a situation that that there's a very compelling argument to be made for you to be biased towards, with no need for immediate handling. You could have quoted it and simply say "this this and this laws must not be discussed", and I would have abridged, but no, you warned me, with warning points, instead. A tool that is meant to be used to inform users of rules breaking, without a rule that I have broke, and I also very much believe you didn't apply equally to anyone else that talked about it (or any other thing that was marked as the thread not being about) either, in a situation there's a very compelling reason to consider you biased toward. This is what the complain is about.

I want a fair decision on the matter, and I'd like the warning removed if the reason behind it will be deemed (decided to be) faulty as I believe it to be for the reasons put forth in the first block of this thread, otherwise, if not, the issuer of the warning to be held to the same standard he himself have put forth for the reasons I have outlined in the last block of the thread, and said rule clearly outlined in the Projects subsection. The former, based on my moral intuition, has a strong preference from my end over the latter.