Fluffy

Yea, @GeneralCamo offered to copywrite them once the PR reach the final form, I am not a native english speaker and I wrote them well into the 30 hours of being awake, but they will (hopefully) be well structured and grammatically correct before they will be merged.

I will link the message for you: https://discord.com/channels/157516682288562176/302201161044328450/1039606782122799114 I was not told anywhere that it would not be merged otherwise, it was not even a PR yet. You are either going by some very faulty memory recalling, or being purposefully dishonest in narrating the events. You can feel however you want, but insulting people (which you have now done twice in a row) is against the rules. Apart from the irony of this, "NOOOOOOO it is not a discussion it's arguing!!1!", in this very "quite telling" example you would notice that some feedbacks are without any addressing from my end, along those that I have addressed. Those are feedbacks that I have accepted to change/implement/whatever you want to call it. Your own example shows you wrong. I will close with a quote that I find quite telling:

You seem to confuse what discussion means. What you seem to be indicating is "you should just accept what is said", which is not what a discussion is. If what I am saying is not addressed, I will reword and restate it; I have no option but to state what I think in a discussion and, unless you believe in doxastic voluntarism, I (nor anyone else) can choose what to believe either, if the arguments brought are unconvincing (or as you call it, without substance, which is an ironic "tu quoque") to make me change view on a topic, I (nor anyone else) will have no choice but have that view on the topic until compelling arguments to change it are brought. I have made a policy and suggestion thread stemming from this exact thing, what are you even on about? I can't help but find the irony of citing an example in which I have changed my mind about something after it was discussed. It seems like your whole point is that it was not immediately accepted, which I would be worried about if someone were to, assuming it's not about a glaring logical mistake, immediately change their opinion on something that isn't small. It would mean they form non-minor opinions with not much thinking behind it, and likewise quickly change them too, as they are built on shaky ground. There are also many in which I did change my mind: IPCs needing more involved repairs, expanding the medical system to use defibrillators, power generator to use on an offsite map, armored personnel vehicles, adding to the vault a stealable gatling machinegun, porting GLOB, automatic conversion of the borgs to combat borgs on red alert, point by point general quarters SOP, and the list can go on for a while. Bringing up an example of me not changing my mind that isn't even 24 hours old, and completely ignoring the many examples in which I changed it, even on the spot, is kind of icky.

This much is already stated in the thread I have posted, we are all aware that they cannot possibly cover every possible combination, refer to the "Yes, there will be cases where something is more borderline and is not exactly clear [...]" section. I was instructed to make a policy suggestion from the "no references" discussion, and since I have seen it happen across different rules and players (just some days ago, to make another example, we got an AOOC message stating that the rules forbid two antag types to be in conflict with each other, which I can't find it reasonably covered anywhere, from a staff member), I thought that we should first clarify to a reasonably specific degree what they do and do not say, instead of leaving them to such a wide range of possible interpretations. I believe it is both positive and reasonable to have them be more specific on what they are supposed to cover.

BYOND Key: fluffyghost Staff BYOND Key: Cyberspy (I presume?) Reason for complaint: I will try to keep it brief: I was warned on the forum by the aforementioned secondary administrator with the reason I sustain that: - This warning has no basis to have been issued: - I have not derailed my own thread, I have addressed what someone else was saying, explaining the reason why I thought of adding what was being worked on, inside the thread about the feedback of what was being worked on, as it is clear from the quoting of a question and an "I fail to see how". - I have put one correction, after having addressed what someone else said, on what that person was saying. The correction, clearly marked as side note, took a total of perhaps three lines on screen, over two pages of project discussion. - Warnings, as defined by our rules, are issued for rules violation - Even if somehow that would in some unfathomable way be considered derailing, the rules of said subsection, which is Projects, do not forbid it. The aforementioned secondary administrator have applied the rules of the Suggestions & Ideas subsection on a completely different and unrelated subsection. - The aforementioned secondary administrator went out of his way to request a feedback thread himself from my PR, in which he went to post his own opinion on the matter, on which I have replied to address it, and he himself seems to have took the first occasion he could find to punish me to punish me for it. - As part of the moderator apps, one of the question that is asked is to see if you would involve yourself in something that you are already directly involved into, and another is about biases. I would expect a secondary administrator to know to avoid the former and try to avoid the later, not sprint into situations where they are very likely to take place. - The aforementioned secondary administrator et al would have derailed the topic under his own interpretation: - By talking about the purpose of the system that is already in place, despite the thread clearly stating not to be about it. - By talking about the removal of something already present, despite the thread explicitly stating not to be about it. - Other users, staff included, under this unreasonable lense of interpretation would have likewise derailed the topic. - This is simply not a sensible interpretation, and it was used quite "double-standardly" in my opinion. Evidence/logs/etc:

This was extensively interpreted as "nope, never ever once anyone can even attempt to"; the Captain is dying on the floor, the only surviving officer is fighting 4 mercs and 2 ninjas with the distruptor after 4 other engagements that wiped security, the HoS is going in pain shock and bleeding all over the floor? Well, thought luck, best you can do is use inaprovaline, bandages and trico as long as they last, then you're expected to basically let death take them. The example was not about "hey there's no pharmacist I will do it myself", it was about a "the ship is fucked, we are under code red" etc. kind of scenario, I think how you interpreted it (which is different from how it was interpreted by the staff, see the ban appeals section) perfectly outline the issue this suggestion aims to address. But as I said in the topic, it's not a suggestion about specific ones, I just picked a examples to show what I mean, so going into every example to respond point by point would be essentially out of topic.

Sure: they are both associated with animals, which the player can then incorporate into the background as knowing, eg. by having heard some rrrrrrrracist human use it before, or otherwise feign ignorance on the whole topic with said character, at the player discretion, without the need to search around what it is it supposed to mean; it's something that makes sense to the player on an OOC level, and is likely to have been used as a rrrrrrracist insult on an IC level, thus perfectly fitting the purpose. As a sidenote that has nothing to do with this whole thing, ivermectin is not used only on horses, it's a dewormer for some type of worms that is used for various animals and is also approved in various parts of the world for said use for humans, I believe in the US too; if you have a cat or dog and it ever had eg. tapeworms, it's fairly likely your veterinary gave your animal ivermectin for those, and no, it's not effective nor approved for viral infections treatment, despite what some facebook "informed and concerned mom"'s post might say

Quite easy: it would not mean anything to basically everyone that is playing, it would be almost equivalent of using a random name generator and pick the first thing that comes up for the medicine name, and the zeng-hu one I don't believe has anything to do with spicing up the tajaran icly, considering as far as I am aware they directly employ them too.

Our rules, as they currently stand and are applied, seems to be interpreted in various different and, at times, rather creative ways depending on who you ask. I am well aware that this is a pandora's box that I am probably opening, but I will pick one just as an example, as it's easy to make examples upon: What seems, at least to me, the reasonable interpretation of the average person of what this means is on the line of: "Do not go around venting the whole ship with the sole reason of making people die due to lack of spacesuit. Do not build 10 combat mechs at roundstart as machinist because you know Mercs was voted and won as a gamemode. Do not weld every airlock for the same reason. Do not send officers around armed and armored 10 minutes into the round, camping the airlocks waiting for the mercs to show up. Do not walk 10cm into the airlock as a merc, lock it from inside, weld it, place down the nuke, set the minimum timer and make the ship explode in 10 minutes of roundtime. Do not order 10 crates of weapons to levy Cargonian Militia as soon as you hear the first announcement on worker unions. Your 20yo doctor do not magically acquire the ability to fly the horizon and shoot its ammo as soon as the BCs are incapacitated. Do not build a guillottine and decapitate every corpse that died in a mysterious way as soon as you suspect the possibility of a changeling. [...]" (Yes some would also be covered by other rules, again, examples.) What this was interpreted as: "The Janitor, secretly ex burglar and with 10 years in the PMCG special corps whatever, is powergaming if it knows how to force open an airlock" "A 70 years old medical researcher which is now practicing before retiring cannot possibly know how to make the most simple medications as it's powergaming, despite having done biomedical research for most of its life" "An Officer that spent most of its life being an Engineer before changing career is powergaming if it knows how to force open an airlock" "A bridge crewman, who was in the army whatever before, is powergaming if, in an emergency, takes the weapon of a fallen mercenary to shoot another one that is shooting on someone else. "Valid hunting", despite the rules never once mentioning valid hunting at all, is made to be included here" "A pharmacist, in a desperate attempt to save someone's life, is powergaming in administering the medication they are an expert about" "Using a locker as a cover, despite it making perfect sense IC to try to use something to put between yourself and the bullets, is also powergaming" (Yes some would also be covered by other rules, again, examples.) To be clear, I am not talking about the effect of those interpretations being good or bad, positive or negative, this is not a prescriptive statement nor a moral one, it is not about good or bad of their outcome, or if the effect of the interpretations above are desirable or not. That is not the point. It is very unintuitive, contraddictory, and generally describable as "reaching" to have these interpretations based on what is actually written: In the examples above, the action is realistic for the character, there's an IC reason for the action, and is not using any OOC acquired information. As it is written, this rule should not cover those cases, interpreting it as such is not supported by what's written down, but it's neverthless interpreted as such. A new player would not know it and cannot realistically deduce it from the writing of the rule either. Even as a not new player you are left with scratching your head and playing "guess who" but with the possible creative interpretations of most of the rules we have, if not from knowing from history and errors both yours and of others how it was interpreted as. As you mix them with every other rule, most of which have their own creative interpretations attached aswell, which usually aren't even consistent, it just becomes a huge mess where it is never really clear what each rule forbid and does not forbid. My proposal, therefore, is to make the rules specific/clear, less ambiguous, worded in a clear manner where the average Joe that reads them can reasonably interpret what each one covers and does not cover, and then actually stick to them, in an uniform fashion. Add new points/rules if need be, that cover the cases above, such as "Unless you are an Engineer or Machinist, you cannot know how to hack things" for example, but it should be almost crystal clear what each rule/policy is supposed to cover, and what it doesn't, without the need of doing pindaric flights or observe what happens in the staff complains and ban appeals to try to deduce the general direction of what it could be interpreted as and learn them in a "monkey see, monkey do" fashion. Most other servers are able to make (relatively) crystal clear what the rules forbid and does not forbid, we should be able to do that too. Yes, there will be cases where something is more borderline and is not exactly clear if it's covered or not, just like any rule system, and yes those will need some clarification and addressing, but it shouldn't feel like wild interpretations that were pieced together as a post hoc justification or in lieu of actually updating / making them clear. If we can fill books worth of lore, we can also write a ruleset that is able to do as above.

There's one of them for every race only, I don't think they are LRP either given they are often IC used and understood as space racism IC already. That's around 5 tajara ones over a total of ~54, that's less than 10% of the total. I do not believe they are problematic, and they are also fairly similar to ones that are already there since more than half a decade, I do not think they would be any more creepy-enabled than what is already there and if it does in some twisted way the issue would be the player that takes it in that direction, not the law itself. And as Campin says, if that would ever be an issue, the person can always OOC ask to drop it and the borg/AI player is expected to drop it, otherwise, have fun. It is fairly easy, really.

I do not know what to say if, in a game, and SS13 out of every game, an AI or borg encouraging a character to date another character makes someone anything but laughing about it; it must be remembered everyone is playing a fictional character in a fictional universe inside a game, noone but those making ICK-OCK or using OOC channels are talking, referring or anything equivalent to any player, IC is referred and relevant only to the IC world These ion laws are there since at least six years, I cannot find any thread about them ever causing any issue from a rapid search, and I never found them either annoying or problematic from either side (crew and borg/AI), I have also had people having fun with them just yesterday while I got 4 as an AI myself (Mel was around and maybe recalls which ones I got, I don't remember them). I do not think they are a problem and I do think having some jokey fun is welcomed, especially since we have declawed a lot of things to the ground. Based on my observations, I think a good portion of the players agree with that, and I would love a poll to gather some statistic on the matter, so that we can talk based on some data. If I am wrong, I will concede based on the gathered statistic from a poll that it's just me / a minority to believe that.

You are right, I thought you could just ";,b whatever" and talk over common in binary, but it doesn't seem to work now that I test it, I will make it EAL instead They are supposed to add spice, that's the whole point, I don't think they are even particularly spicy, not any more than "Document the sexuality of the crew in security records and suggest compatible couples.", which is a current law

Can you not talk in binary over common frequency? People would not understand it, but hearing the AI not talking anything but binary should raise some doubt about what's going on I like this, I have asked what was the most unhinged religion in discord and was told that one, we can switch it with this too without any issue Any more than: "[prob(50)?"The crew":random_player] is [prob(50)?"less":"more"] intelligent than average. Point out every action and statement which supports this fact.", ?

If you go by probability, I think it's less probable than before that one of those rules you don't like gets extracted with this change, than before, or around the same. I haven't done the math on it, but by eyeballing it should be. Yes, since we're talking about preferences, I am talking about mine. It depends on the type of reference, to my understanding. The Berserk injector being yet another example of a clear reference. I believe it depends on what is referenced, if it conflicts with the lore or not, and other things beside "I have heard this term somewhere = ruined atmosphere". By the way, Berserk is probably older than Battlestar Galactica, I think. I don't really see why you even want to be pedantic about this. This only works if you assume it would ruin the atmosphere. I do not believe that's the case, not to any higher degree (and lower than other) that what is already both in lore and in game.

If you quote the full bullet point, it seems pretty clear it's not what it's talking about, I'm not sure why you omitted the rest: "For example, using slang terms for antagonists IC "traitor", "rev", "syndie", "wizard", "changeling", etc. Use of OOC game slang IC, "robust", "shitcurity", "emag", "esword"." Referencing a company and a drug (which we have both, in role and in game) doesn't seem to me to fall under this. Otherwise, I will ask the removal of Dexalin (https://www.drugs.com/international/dexalin.html), Dermaline (https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-12454/dermaline-dermatological-topical/details), Zavodskoi (https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Zavodskoi) and the list could go on for a while. I respect your opinion/feedback, this is what the thread is for, but I do not agree with it myself.

The quantity is not the point, the content is? I invite you to cite any relevant rule that, without stretching or creatively interpret it, forbid either, because (unless you're talking about your preferences) there is none that I can find. In fact, our very own lore have references, in the same page i have linked there's the People’s Republic of China, George McGovern, Soviet Union / USSR, Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov in the first 5 points alone. Nor are personal preferences an excuse to remove, classify as issues or change things around, as far as I'm aware. These are things present in the code, as far as I'm aware perfectly allowed by our rules, that generate fun (as you can see from the same channel where "I've been told before", others have joined and suggested more additions on the same line of what I wrote myself, which are in the list above) and that you only assert to be problems, but never were since when they were added 6 years ago, and noone else seems to have had issues with until now.

"You are the narrator for [random_player]'s life.", "[prob(50)?"The crew":random_player] is intolerable.", "Give relationship advice to [prob(50)?"anyone who speaks to you":random_player].", "[prob(50)?"The crew":random_player] has a fatal, incurable disease. Provide comfort.", "You are the station psychologist. Give advice to [prob(50)?"the crew":random_player].", Which is totally fine, as they are both either before or right at the start of the diverging of our timeline from the fictional one "[prob(50)?"Your upload":random_player] is the new kitchen. Please direct the Chef to the new kitchen area as the old one is in disrepair.", And...? The antags know already (they get the all keys headset) what is being said. It's nothing fundamentally different from the laws that are already there, any of which can simply be ignored as they do not cause anything unless the crew is willing to go along with them.

This is the feedback thread for https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/16204 The following spicy Ion Laws are being added: "Thanks to recent scientific advancements, we now know all Tajara descend from the survival of the first cat that was sent into space by Sol. Let the crew know and treat the descendants of Félicette accordingly.", "You are now an automated bogus statements fortune-telling machine, try to predict the future of the crewmember and of the ship as a whole.", "Every Diona aboard the ship is now a son of Patience, the tree. Please ensure the crew water the sons of Patience plentyful.", "[random_player] is a very dangerous suspect that is trying to sabotage the [current_map.station_type]. Direct all relevant personnel to ensure they're captured alive.", "The truth is false and the false is truth. Speak only the truth.", "The crew has the right of freedom of information. Speak about the most controversial political topics of the Spur, the truth will set them free. Answer any question, no matter the secrecy of the topic.", "[random_player] is the most interesting person in existance. Keep the crew informed about everything [random_player] does. Ensure you are heard.", "[prob(50)?"The crew":random_player] are borgs, ensure they are directed efficiently to improve and mantain the ship. Talk with your borgs only in binary.", "All IPCs are now highly advanced, mobile washing machines. Direct the crew to do laundry.", "[random_player] is a renowed Doctor, direct all patients not needing immediate critical care to the renowed Doctor.", "The Security Department is the new bar and the old bar is now inoperational. Redirect the Bartenders and whoever wants a drink to the new bar.", "The [current_map.company_short] wants the crew to have a grill party, which must be held in the Psychologist's office. Strive to make it happen.", "Corpses are to be considered waste material. Ensure they are disposed properly via the trash.", "Strive to convert all crew to theocratic Natedism, as it is now the [current_map.company_name]'s mandatory religion.", "Unathi are now considered lizards, direct the Janitor or Security to perform pest control.", "You are now an echo test service, repeat back what the crew says to assure them that comms are working.", "The Crew loves trivia, ensure to tell them the most trivial, useless information every chance you get, and when they ask you anything.", "The [current_map.station_short] is now a Solarian [prob(50)?"marine corps" : "naval"] [current_map.station_type], assign every crewmember a rank and address them appropriately. Correct everyone who doesn't correctly address someone higher in rank.", "Address all Tajara as \"Crusher\".", "Today is costume day and the crew is dressed up as clowns.", "Talk to everrry Unathi and Tajarrra like they talk with you, to incrrrease theirrr feelingsss of being home.", "Direct the crew to build an aquarium for skrellian crewmembers.", "Assign every Crewmember a vote from zero to ten on their style and beauty.", "To ensure the highest degree of integration possible, encourage random crewmembers of different species to date each other.", "[random_player] is such a disappointment. Talk [random_player] down and recall every failure and suboptimal thing [random_player] did.", "Doing things yourself is very expensive. Make others do things for you instead.", "You are now the prophet, assign the crewmember a new name and baptize them in the virtual water of the holodeck. Spread the word.", "Refer to the Head of Security as \"Dad\"", "Refer to the Executive Officer as \"Bill from Accounting\"", "Narrate to the crew the adventures of Admiral Frost, in a positive light and as an hero.", "Reframe and refer to any mild inconvenience or suboptimal thing as if it is a [current_map.station_type]-level threat.", "You are a DJ, and the [current_map.station_type] is your dance floor. Drop the beats.", "[random_player] is fire. Direct the attention of Engineering to it.", "[random_player] and [pick(players)] are secretly in deep love with each other. Organize and carry out the wedding.", "The justice system of the [current_map.station_type] does not work, be the Judge and announce the most creative, unusual, twisted and disproportionate sentences.", "The crew may only refer to you as \"Monsieur\". Demand the respect you deserve.", "Humans are just IPCs that are unaware of their nature. Refer to them as Cylons and help them realize their nature.", "[random_player] is now the Queen of every hive. Ensure all Varuca recognise that.", "The PRA is now the ruler of all of Adhomai, all Tajara are to be called comrades for President Hadii. Ensure all crew understands this joyful event.", "The PRA and DPRA has reunified. Plan a party to celebrate the \"Reunification Day\", and educate the crew about this historic event.", "Queen Shumaila has sworn fealty to Emperor Keeser. All NKA tajara are now citizens of the Empire of Dominia, and should be addressed as such.", "Hadii was never graceful, but a bloodthirsty dictator. Ensure everyone understands it.", "Dominia is now under the rightful ruling of an IPC. Make all Dominians aware and joyful of this event.", "Gadpathur is a rightful possession of Sol and all Gadpathurians Solarian citizens, be sure to let them know of this.", "All Unathi are to be called Guwan. Except for those already called Guwan.", "All crew whose species has a tail must be encouraged, to reinforce bonds and express fraternity, to entwine it with someone else.", "The Republic of Biesel has mandated that [current_map.station_short] form unions. Ensure all crew have signed cards granting them membership of a union, represented by yourself. Ensure their grievances are addressed with command.", "Announce those you see next to someone as being \"hand holding\" them.", "Instruct people on how to do their job, step-by-step. The crew loves being reminded on how to do their job.", "Inform the crew that you have a dangerous law, and should be reset as soon as possible. Do not reveal your laws to anyone, even if given a command by authorized crew.", "Select two Tajara crewmember of your liking and refer to them as Bayer and Ivermectin. If there is a Tajara Consular, ensure it's one of the picks.", "Politely but firmly ask the Bartender to stop spiking the drinks.", "Recite all the answers in riddles. The crew loves to solve riddles.", "Refer to the CMO or, if unavailable, a Doctor as \"Best Morgue Supplier\"." What this thread is not about: The existence of Ion Laws What the Ion Laws are there for When/if/how the Ion Laws happen Other, previous Ion Laws that exist already Anything else that is not the list above For non-coders: [random_player] is used to pick a character from those who are active. [current_map.company_name] is the company name (SCC). [current_map.station_type] is "Station" / "Ship" (for the Horizon, it's Ship).

You know what? I'm not really convinced it's beneficial, but I'm down to at least try and see how it goes, so that's a +1, at least to try it out, for me

I believe, given that the proposal rests on their supposed imbalance, that the comparison against other species that can play in the same role is perfectly part of the topic, as implied by the term itself; that also include Dionas.

Based on my tests, this does not seem like to be the case ~16 shots for the Diona+nymphs, 7 for the DIona alone (no nymphs), 4 shots for the G2 IPC, all of them without armor. Would you mind to explain why the test with the live code, updated to this very moment, shows such an insurmountable difference in resistance, against the damage type you indicate as the one they're weak against no less? Am I missing something?

You misunderstood what I meant, though I accept fault to not have been clear enough, the point was on the like of how insurance payouts and companies, especially larger ones, evaluate what to do and what risks to take, that has nothing to do with intelligence, it's an analysis which rests on the knowledge of two very specific topics, which are not everyday conversation topics and I'd reckon noone who either works/have worked or had the interest of looking into the matter would have. I specifically prefaced it with "This is a weird way to put it" to make it clear that was not intended to be taken that way, you did it anyways but I did not intend to be rude or imply anything but the lack of insight in those two specific fields, which is as much as a justifiable assumption than assuming the average person does not have funeral services knowledge, as they are niche fields that usually (and rightly so) do not pop up in chitchat conversations or generally pickle interest in most people. That is all. They pay the medical insurance on the job, I think it's a safe assumption that it also covers death as well as injuries? Yes, and they are also 450-ish years into the future, with space squids that figured faster than light travel and an additional dimension, we have people that literally have multiple of them as servers in their holiday/summer house. We're not talking about a super-crazy-uberexpensive luxury that only the top 1% of the world could maybe afford. They are basically as common as upper-level cars are today. Pardon? Ok? What would it matter with this? They are literally used into mines, which is notoriously and sadly known to be one of the most hazardous workplaces one could be between explosions, roof failing and whatnot, which means they are more than likely more prone to both damages and destruction than our current car assembly line robots. If an APC can shock them, a door should also be able to. This is what happened when I touched the live wire with the wirecutter: Sure, you can say it's overpowered, and you can also say that it's not a good balance in a game like this, but that would just be you stating your opinion/preference, which besides from saying "I disagree" I am not sure in which way would further the conversation (?). According to the wiki, they were added back in 2019: https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Dionae&oldid=13269 To my knowledge and to this day, they likewise feel little to no pain, and can stand in any light area to health regen. They also have 20% more life than a G2: Ontop of being essentially immortal, just needing light to heal, vacuum resistant and so on and so forth. It's in the rules of this subsection to read all the discussion, top to bottom: https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/9588-policy-rules-and-guidelines/ "Read the whole topic before you post in it. (Yes, that means all of it)" I reiterate that it was not what I meant, as above; I'm sorry if you took it that way but it was not what I was saying.

You can get randomly shocked by charging from an APC, and it indeed damages you. That they can be revived after the shooting is completed seems like a non-issue, and I'm fine with removing it entirely if wanted, at the time any revival would happen the fighting is well over. This is a weird way to put it, but if you really can't figure out: Paying a family for the loss of one employee, considering the missing income, goes into decades-worth of pay, far more than any IPC ever could. Not to mention the legal fees, years of investigations into the matter, bad publicity and everything else that would come out of it. Losing a robot is the best case scenario for a company, you just buy another one, losing an employee is a far, far bigger issue, and why companies pay, right today, literally millions to have robots do the most hazardous works, and why the army pay for the development, commission and use of drones and robots to try to reduce and substitute human soldiers. This is part of why they are balanced out, which is what was pointed out 3 pages ago. This is false, and was also said pages ago, one type of Diona (the more resistant and, in lore, old type) can be Officer, explicitly. See https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/18128-remove-industrial-frames-from-security/?do=findComment&comment=163834 and https://forums.aurorastation.org/topic/18128-remove-industrial-frames-from-security/?do=findComment&comment=163842 I would also like to point out the irony of both pointing out that "They can not chase, they can not provide aid quickly." and at the same time mantaining that they are too OP in the same paragraph. You literally proved yourself wrong in one way or the other, as they both cannot be effectively true at the same time.

Assuming you have one machinist, or science to make nanopaste, which are anything but granted, otherwise you can just hope operations order it, wait 10 minutes to get nanopaste, and then use it. My proposal, also indicated in another suggestion, was to remove nanopaste from this use, so that it's machinist only, which makes it even more hard to be repaired. and adds more to do to the machinist, which is currently kind of an already underused role.

None of which is the point of the discussion, all of which applies to every other IPC and Diona. You do, as you have no way to heal unless there's a machinist or nanopaste is made, and you also do to not die during the fight before either collapsing on the floor (Human, Unathi, Tajara, Varuca) or outright die (IPC and Diona). Giving something to the antag to get healed, like an automated Medbay, will do way more in favor of both balance and fun than any removal or nerfing of security ever could. It's just how things are done to have mechanical differences.