The_Ill_Fated

Hello, apologies for the delay. I'm traveling for the holidays right now. 1/1. Do you think the current structure is effective? Why or why not? I believe the current structure certainly has the potential to work successfully, I particularly believe that its structure enables a high degree of consistency that’s essential for the plans for NBT2. While I can see how this might cause bottlenecks, I think that is worth the uniformity of oversight as to allow a cohesive vision that’s critical for such a foundational rework. 1/2. How would you structure the lore team if you had full freedom to redesign it? Honestly, I don’t currently possess the insight with the information I have right now. I think any adjustments would best be based on how the structure works as we progress towards NBT2. I.E. what works, what consistently bottlenecks, and what the team actually needs during NBT2 development. My priority would be a data-driven approach rather than reshaping the team according to personal preference, ensuring stability while letting real results guide any future restructuring 2/1. Are you confident you can stick out the tedious or uninteresting parts of NBT2 work? Yes, long, tedious projects are something I’m already accustomed to in my professional life, and I understand that major reworks require substantial amounts of unglamorous groundwork. I’m fully capable of pushing through the less enjoyable stages to ensure the project reaches completion. Consistency and follow-through are two of my strongest professional habits in my opinion, and the end-goal is worth the labor. 2/2. How would you describe your work personality? I believe I am generally goal-oriented, communicative and somewhat structured. I believe clarity, accountability ensuring everyone understands the full breadth of both the purpose, and expectations of what we’re doing is essential. 3/1. Please expand more on how you see NBT2 moving toward a more dynamic state. NBT2 allows us to shift from a static corporate setting into a freelancer-driven universe where conflict, exploration, and change are natural parts of daily life. With the galaxy fragmented, and technology lost, and waiting to be recovered, characters have believable reasons to take risks and encounter danger without breaking canon. The contract-based gameplay loop, persistent technology tiers, and redesigned away sites create constant movement both IC and OOC, ensuring the setting evolves through player action supported, rather than constrained by the lore. 3/2. How would you stop stagnation from occurring over time? Stagnation is prevented by making the universe inherently unstable and by ensuring that gameplay/lore progression never fully plateaus. Contracts, rival freelancer groups, shifting resource scarcity, and evolving relic technologies give the IC world continuous pressure points that naturally generate change. I think the predominant problem will be, after we’ve achieved this, to keep it fresh and dynamic rather than a repeating cycle. 3/3. How do you envision strengthening the connection between lore and regular rounds? The new systems make lore directly tied to in-round actions: money earned or lost affects the ship, relic discoveries grant temporary mechanical advantages, and interactions with away ships become persistent narrative threads. Instead of lore being something players only read on the wiki, it becomes a feedback loop where what happens in a round has visible IC consequences. By letting round-to-round gameplay meaningfully influence the world, through persistent resources, evolving tech levels, and contract outcomes, the lore becomes something players actively experience and shape. Allowing players to make moderate, and minor changes to the settings through their actions

1) What do you believe you can bring to the team as Deputy Loremaster? I believe I can contribute a blend of worldbuilding expertise, leadership experience, and broad technical knowledge that can support a wide span of Aurora’s lore. More importantly, I want to play a part in helping to shift the lore from something many players see as a passive background, to something active and consistently relevant to the average round. I think it essential that players and their characters be invested in the setting because their actions matter, because the lore is responsive, meaningful, and present, not just decorative. 2) Do you have any experience managing a Team? The duties of a Deputy Loremaster often revolve around being a Project Lead, not necessarily just writing. This is especially true going forward. Yes. A substantial portion of my professional career has been spent in leadership roles across multiple fields. I currently work as a project engineer, leading a team of nearly 40 people, and I have held positions in the past with over 100 under my direction. 3) Aurora is starting development of NBT2, and as Deputy Loremaster, you will be heavily involved at a high level in this - what do you believe fundamentally needs fixing from a lore perspective that can be accomplished with NBT2? NBT2 gives us the opportunity to address two issues that are interconnected. First, the background lore, despite its excellent story arcs, and high-quality events, is constrained by the current circumstances of the setting. We are boxed in by a static status quo, which makes major shifts difficult to justify, or execute. NBT2 will allow us to move the setting into a more dynamic state, where significant changes can occur naturally, and believably. Second, the average round lacks strong engagement with ongoing lore. Event rounds and canon odysseys show 2 - 3x the usual player count, which clearly shows that everyone wants the lore to matter to them. Even small acknowledgements, articles, bulletins, IC announcements, go a long way. Strengthening this connection in everyday rounds will make the lore more vibrant, and improve the server as a whole. 4) On the other hand - what do you believe is the strongest point of our lore currently? Aurora’s greatest strength lies in the sheer breadth of options available. Within the bounds of the setting's believability, players can find, or create, cultures, origins, religions, identities that resonate with them, that they care about and are excited for. The diversity, the flexibility, it allows players to engage with the setting in personal, meaningful ways. It’s a beautiful, fun part of the server’s identity, and something that I believe should be strongly preserved moving forward. 5) Furthermore, regarding NBT2, give a general description of how you think the logistics of such a massive rework should be done - I.E, what should be decided on and written first, and then what should follow? In general, no more than a paragraph. A top-down approach is the most effective. First define the core pillars of this new era: The unifying themes, tone, and structural foundations that are essential. Once those are nailed down, and thoroughly understood, expand outwards into the supporting elements, how to integrate these changes into the factions, institutions, and cultural frameworks of the Spur. This method keeps the worldbuild cohesive, while allowing the rest of the lore to be developed in an organized, intentional way. 6) What timezone are you normally awake during? I alternate between US Eastern and US Central timezones.

I mean, from the description of the direction the setting will be moving towards. There's plenty of reasons for your currently rich character to at minimum, not be quite as rich. The whole setting will have shit the bed metaphorically speaking.

Lore Impact: Small Species: Human Short Description: Some additional details to the Southern Reconstruction Mandate world of Sankt Frederick, former capital of the Solarian Provision Government. This takes the entry on the wiki from 224 words to 519, just about doubling it, while adding some nuance and complexity to Sankt Frederick's situation. Additionally, I've put together an accent tag, banner, and Flag all of which I'm hoping to get someone to code-in for me. How will this be reflected on-station?: It provides more context, and detail regarding Sankt Frederick for players to use in their backgrounds, it'll also be intertwined with the flag, banner, and accent as previously said. Does this addition do anything not achieved by what already exists?: Yes, it expands on the existing relatively minor detail, and gives more breadth to another Solarian world outside of the Sol system. Which is nice. Do you understand that the project may change over time in ways you may not foresee once it is handed over to the Lore Team? I do! Long Description: The other of the prominent worlds of the Mandate is Sankt Frederick, formerly the capital of the Solarian Provisional Government of the Southern Reaches (SPG). One of the few worlds that did not collapse into anarchy after the events of 2462, Sankt Frederick has remained among the most stable planets in the Wildlands and quickly became a common destination for refugees fleeing violence in regions such as the Wasteland and Corporate Reconstruction Zone. Only one warp gate jump away from the broader Alliance, most residents of Sankt Frederick were spared the worst direct impacts of the civil war. Instead, they have had to contend with its consequences. The planet, long a patchwork of fertile farmland, winding river valleys, and small agrarian towns, had for centuries served as one of the Alliance’s primary breadbaskets. A combination of intensive planetside agriculture and sprawling orbital hydroponics platforms once enabled it to export far beyond its own needs, feeding much of the middle and outer rings. Today, that same agricultural system struggles to keep pace with the millions of displaced Solarian citizens who have flooded into the colony in the years since the Collapse. Housing, feeding, and integrating these new arrivals have transformed what was once a sleepy but prosperous agrarian world into a strained and divided society. The sudden influx has brought profound change. Sankt Frederick’s modest cities have swollen with hastily built prefabricated housing and sprawling encampments, while several orbital hydroponics platforms have been partially converted into emergency shelters. Refugees now make up much of the planet’s labor force, but their presence has driven down wages, overburdened schools and clinics, and fueled sharp competition for basic resources. Prices for food and goods have skyrocketed, harsh rationing has become the norm, and resentment has deepened. Many long-time residents see the newcomers as both an economic threat and a societal burden, while refugees in turn accuse local authorities of discrimination, neglect, and exploitation. These tensions have been sharpened by what locals see as neglect from the greater Alliance. Aid and resources are funneled primarily toward the devastated Northern Mandate, while the naval stronghold of Visegrad remains the clear priority in the south. To many Sankt Frederickers, this is a bitter insult: their world has remained stable, fed countless millions, and sheltered the displaced, yet their efforts are met with indifference. The presence of a substantial Solarian Army garrison has done little to ease frustrations. Soldiers, stretched thin and often embittered themselves by the lack of naval assistance, struggle to maintain order, further reinforcing the sense of abandonment. Culturally, the planet finds itself in a state of upheaval. Traditional Fredericker life, once centered on farming festivals, cooperative associations, and a distinctive agrarian identity, is steadily giving way to the myriad customs, languages, and faiths of the refugee communities. Overcrowded districts in the cities have become incubators of hybrid dialects, strongly influenced by Tradeband and Freespeak, in contrast to the firmly Solarian Common dialect spoken by long-time residents. For some, this blending is seen as a sign of resilience and renewal; for others, it is proof that Frederick’s cultural identity is slowly being eroded. Banner, Flag, and Accent tag art are attached. For reference.

ERP Carp glibs, "Remember kids." Samantha Harrison exclaims, "Wah!" ERP Carp glubs, "Use protection!"'

ckey: The_Ill_Fated Reporting Personnel: Andromeda Maschera Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Bartender Game ID: cy7-dde4 Personnel Involved: Andromeda Maschera - Victim Ini Ugonma - Offender Secondary Witnesses: Leonides Montaigne-Ramsteinn - Head of Security, On Duty at the time. Lynn Reyer - Warden, Processed charges. Bava Schoffer - Potential Witness Time of Incident: 09:00 Real Time: 9PMish EST Server Time 04/14/2025 Location of Incident: Bar, Captain’s Office, Security Department Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [ ] - Neglect of Duty [ ] - Harassment [ ] - Assault [X] - Misconduct [ ] - Other Overview of the Incident: During this shift last night, Captain Ini Ugonma requested that a pot of ‘Konyang Tea’ be delivered to her office, early in the shift. At the time I was occupied with creating a pricing list, that she had aggressively insisted be in place in all service departments, and as a result there was some delay. Roughly 5 - 10 minutes later, as witnessed by Ms. Bava Schoffer, I brewed the requested tea, and departed to deliver it to the Captain’s office. As I did not see the Captain inside of her office, I went to place the teapot down on a tray outside, however I tripped doing so and shattered the teapot. I did not alert the Captain of me doing so at the time, as I became distracted with someone talking to me, I also fully intended to immediately brew a replacement teapot and deliver it to her office as soon as I could. I became distracted by several clients at the bar, and by attempting to locate a replacement type of teapot as the bar is only provided with a single of the ‘Konyang’ style teapots. Some time later, the Captain and Head of Security arrived at the Bar, and asked about the tea. I did not inform them of what happened, as I feared retaliation for my mistake, as I’d noticed on several different instances, that the Captain was quite aggressive towards the crew, and wanted to avoid any retaliation for what ultimately, was a simple mistake on my part. At this point, I filled a coffee pot with the requested tea, and hand-delivered it to her office. She was quite aggressive, and upset about the tea. I informed her that I’d brought Tea to her office earlier, but didn’t know what happened to it. At this point I figured that the Captain would be annoyed with me, but ultimately just settle with having her tea now. Instead, the Captain had security organize a search of the Horizon for the Tea Kettle, apparently involving both the detainment of an IPC (so I heard), and security questioning me regarding the appearance of the kettle, what it looked like, where I’d left it, etc. Later into the shift, security approached me with a warrant, detained me, and escorted me to the brig for questioning, where I repeated what I had told the Captain earlier. At that time, Ms. Reyer stated she believed the charges were clearly hearsay, that they wouldn’t proceed, and attempted to release me. However the Captain insisted that I had ‘Trespassed’, and ‘Failed to obey a Legitimate Order’, and had me incorrectly fined 700 Credits, prior to security later returning 200 CR, as it was ‘a mistake’. While I fully admit that my breaking of the tea-pot, and fear of an excessive reaction by the Captain started this series of events, I contend that Captain Ugnoma’s response lacked any sense of proportionality for what was, ultimately, a genuine mistake that I saw corrected, by delivering a replacement pot of tea. This demonstrates a lack of tact, diplomacy, or understanding seems grossly inappropriate for someone in such an elevated position. Submitted Evidence: N/A - witness testimony only Would you like to be personally interviewed? [X] - Yes [ ] - No Did you report it to a Head of Staff or a superior? If so, who? If not, why? No, the majority of on-duty heads of staff were complicit in this misconduct. Actions taken: Beyond my spoken protest, I was unable to do anything further to attempt to address this misconduct, due to the personnel involved. Additional Notes: N/A

You left out [Common] Mae Lin asks, "Extra meat, maybe?"

BYOND Key: The_Ill_Fated Total Ban Length: Permanent Banning staff member's Key: garnascus Reason of Ban: Self-Antagging Reason for Appeal: Forgot to turn off my VPN like I usually do, and I caught someone else's ban from 2018. I'd appreciate getting it lifted. Thanks.

You seem to both be entirely missing my point with this. While previously, prior situations have occurred that resemble this, they aren't identical. Which was the precedent quoted by Campinkiller to justify a 3-day Ban in the first place, that I'd been "Talked to about this" before. The issues brought up by Campinkiller in the prior situations aren't the same raised here, and the only 'similar' thing about them was that they took place in the same room. As stated in my reply to Campin, this is an entirely irrelevant point. Neither the first antag who again entered the wrong Consular's office by accident, second who targeted Imogen for what she had done on ship, or the third who was just committing an armed robbery had any relevance to me having exploitables. The contention that I've used exploitables to target antagonist players and kill/harm/etc them is patently and ludicrously false with a lack of a shred of evidence behind it. As I've stated, when engaged in terms of my exploitables in the past, it's led to a multitude of engagement with a variety of antagonists from a dozen+ players. This doesn't have a lick of relevance to this appeal whatsoever, and I dont' see why it's being brought up, except as malicious 'evidence' with no weight behind it. Regardless, please feel free to close the complaint. As I'm electing to stop playing on Aurora because it's becoming increasingly evident that some members of the staff are wildly unprofessional, and out of touch with both the player base, and the intention of roleplaying, delightfully highlighted by Campin's aggressive ad-hominins within this appeal and your complete lack of concern for it. I can genuinely say I had a lot of great times on Aurora, and I can also say that's decisively over.

I would suggest that most reasonable people would view an armed individual hacking through a secured door which only Consulars, and the Captain have access through, a firearm in-hand after someone matching one of their descriptions was reported to have assaulted a member of the crew as an escalation. As I stated before, Antagonists have responsibility for their actions and decision, including assuming the risk those gimmicks can involve, and this is an example of that. Engaging in an armed robbety against an armed person, on the bridge, with windows untinted and other members of crew nearby is not precisely a low-risk activity. Even if Imogen had 'rolled over' as you insist would've been the appropriate action, the nature of their own actions 100% would've exposed them almost immediately, it was a poor decision with substantive risk for little reward, from both an IC and OOC perspective, and they're the ones that bear that, not me. And if their gimmick was ended for any reason, it was their poor risk assessment. As I've said, roleplaying is not, and should not be confined to the premises of standing idly and talking at one another. Roleplaying is the assumption of the personality of the character you play, with actions and decisions consistent with that within the context of the universe we're in. Additionally, I find it grossly inappropriate that you insist on resorting to personal attacks in every interaction we have, insisting on forcing the most uncharitable and biased view of my actions and motivations rather than even pretending to understand any of what my points are. I did not try to win, as repeatedly explained apparently to no visible effect, I acted in a RP nature consistent with the conditions my character was present within, cornered in her office ARMED facing two individuals who'd just forced their way into a private, secure location after purportedly assaulting another member of the crew. She examined that she had a chance, and took it, if that sounds like "I can win" to you, that's how reasonable people work in these sorts of situations, if you can win you can try, if you can't then you comply and hope for the best. But based on your statements between this and my prior warning, it's equally unacceptable to make any move to defend yourself when you have a good chance, and when you don't have a chance at all. So I'm once more reaching the conclusion that "Roll over and take it" is the only acceptable form of antagonist interaction in your eyes, and that's not from assumption, or an uncharitable read of the situation, it's directly from your mouth, or keyboard in this case. Again, you seem to be wildly ignoring anything I say to justify my action, and instead taking a deliberately malicious and biased choice instead. None of the antagonists I've been talked to over were involved in my exploitables at all, the first stumbled into my office accidentally, the second took umbrage at Imogen's actions on ship, and the third was an armed robbery. So I can only really understand this as you throwing unrelated accusations at me again just to attempt to make me look bad. I can't see how this behavior is remotely acceptable for a member of staff on Aurora. As to your point about my exploitables, yes they are reasonably extensive and have been the point of antag engagement and roleplay on a dozen+ occasions, I've had Alexa Cruze bomb my office as a Solarian sleeper Agent, Elwood Johnson kidnap me probably five times for antag shehenanigans, a Dominian security officer try to force the SCC to extradite me, and a half dozen more at least that I can remember. You are, as I've come to expect from you, cherry picking bad examples in a blatant attempt to hilight supposed maliciousness on my part, while ignoring the rich roleplaying and engagement Imogen and my other characters have been involved in.

Defending ones-self against armed individuals who any reasonable person would assume have a substantive chance of desiring injury upon you is not 'Acting like John Wick'. You can find a thousand videos on the internet of average people in average everyday existence, who when confronted with similar situations, with similar odds, act in a nearly identical manner. The goal with our roleplaying is to create, and play as characters that act reasonably within the context of the universe that they're placed within, and to do so in a manner that is both enjoyable, and consistent. While I recognize that to some minor degree, this 'believability' needs to be mildly suspended to create a more enjoyable situation. The conditions you seem to be intent on enforcing are that where any character, no matter what the situation, just gives up at the earliest sign of any antagonist behavior, regardless of the conditions which may or may not make any action against said antagonist the most 'believable' and realistic option. Imogen ICly, with reasonable IC justification believed she had reasonable odds, and only stayed involved in the situation long enough to remove herself from it. At the earliest possible opportunity she got through the door, closed it behind her, and summoned security. The Captain, if I remember properly specifically said that the Janitor was almost certainly lying just because he was a Guwan. If I'm remembering properly, they didn't offer any evidence to this point, and security even reported finding a dart at the scene the Janitor reported. So, from what it seemed like ICly, they were just doing so because they were being racist at worst, or just plain discriminatory at best. Antagonists are responsible for their own actions, and for putting themselves into situations where risks exist to themselves, and their gimmicks. It is absolutely unreasonable on your part to expect every single situation of antagonist interaction to result in the non-antagonist just rolling over, in some situations like for my prior warning that should've absolutely been what I did, but not in this case. You keep saying 'Play the Hero' as if Imogen stayed within the room, mag-dumped the first guy, magdumped the second guy, wrestled them both onto the floor and proclaimed how badass she was, while ignoring every risk of the situation. Imogen pulled her firearm, fired several rounds only at the one that had a firearm in her hand, a sign that any reasonable person would take as an implicit threat of deadly violence, and SPRINTED from the room as physically quickly as was possible to reach help. Imogen was not trying to kill anyone, she was trying to defend herself. And yes, in the narrow context you've personally assumed as the bounds of 'reasonable roleplaying' I can see how you would feel that way. But Roleplaying consists of more than staring at another character as you talk at one another, rolling over at the first sign of any antagonist activity. That narrow strip that you've certified as 'Reasonable Roleplaying' is repetitive, uninteresting, and inconsistent with the reality of what it would make sense to do in differing situations, for differing characters. I stated that as a result of my interactions with you, and your interpretation of what the Rules are, and what roleplaying should be, leave essentially no reason for a Consular to be armed. In any antagonist-related situation, by the time it would be 'okay' in your judgement for the use of a firearm to be done, the antagonist would have noted the visible holster, and removed it. The Consular being armed is as far as I can tell, ICly intended for personal self-defense in emergency situations, which you've judged to be 'irrational' and 'playing hero'.

Bumping, as per Staff Complaint rules.

BYOND Key: The_ill_fated Staff BYOND Key: Campinkiller Game ID: (Unknown) Reason for complaint: Inappropriate application of a 3-day Ban. Evidence/logs/etc: I'm unable to access logs due to being banned. Additional remarks: In the relevant round, I was playing Imogen Janse, Consular Officer and located in the Consular's Office having tea with Lorraine Pannosian. Suddenly two antagonists emagged the door to the office, and entered, one with a firearm drawn, and one without. One of these antagonists matched the description of someone the Janitor reported as having assaulted him earlier in the round, having injected them with a dart. (I believe the description was a Human in a trench-coat) neither of the individuals were armored, and one had a pistol in their hand (I can't recall what sort). It was approximately 1 hour into the round at the time, and in self-defense I drew my firearm, fired several times (I can't recall precisely, I don't have access to the logs but I had rounds remaining in the Xanan Pistol) and as quickly as physically possible sprinted outside, to summon security. During the shoot-out, I intentionally aimed only at the one closer to me, which was the only one who had a gun out at the start, they died shortly after security arrived, in the process of which I think they exchanged fire with security, the other individual was apprehended, then escaped for further antag shenanigans. Shortly afterwards I was bwoinked by Campin in regards to this, which I explained roughly in the same terms as I am here. About 30 minutes - 1 hour later, they sent me a paragraph of text and issued me a 3 day ban. The severity of this, was in their opinion dictated by a similar situation which I'd been warned for in the past, and in their opinion mandated a harsher punishment as a result. I firmly disagree with that assessment. Said prior situation was different in that the individual who entered the Consular's Office was heavily armed, I believe they were Operatives if I'm remembering properly, and it was very close to the start of the round If I recall right. In this situation Campinkiller's arguments for my warning were entirely sound I believe, their points were as follows Lack of Fear RP: In immediately drawing a handgun on a heavily armed, and armored individual, I as Imogen wasn't expressing an appropriate amount of fear or an appropriate level of roleplaying. A reasonable figure would not do this, as it didn't make sense. Imogen had no chance in this fight. Quashing a Gimmick: As the event occurred early into the round, my rapid escalation of the situation robbed the antagonist, and the players of a substantial amount of roleplaying, and opportunity for engagement. The antag here never got to go about the full breadth of their gimmick simply because they weren't afforded the time, as a result of my actions. Campin's justification of my ban relies on me having been warned for this prior, and still having gone about it in the manner that I did. I firmly believe this is a false equivalency on their part and that the scenarios while similar in nature, are fundamentally different in both of the metrics they'd warned me of in the past. Fear RP: I believe this is a different situation as a result of the disparity of force being drastically different. In the first scenario, Imogen was confronted by an individual in heavy body armor, that was heavily armed, and acted irrationally in drawing her firearm. In the second, Imogen's office was violently broken into by two individuals, with only a pistol being visible, along with no body armor or additional gear evident. Imogen's reaction here is understandable, and reasonable, after all she is provided with a firearm for her own self defense. In what seems like a fair fight, it's not a stretch from a gameplay, or roleplaying perspective to defend yourself in this situation. Furthermore, she only shot at the person who was armed, and made the best effort to remove herself from it as quickly as physically possible to get help. Gimmick Suppression: This event took place far farther into the round, with several small instances of Antagonist shenanigans being performed prior to this occurring, as I mentioned earlier there was already an existing report of one of the antagonists assaulting another character. Time-wise I believe this was approximately just over an hour into the round when it occurred suddenly. The antags had time to set up their ideas, and begin executing them elsewhere, the one who survived even doing so for well into an extension of the round. Fundamentally, I believe these antagonists took an action that was risky (i.e. involving an armed person) and it did not entirely play out in the favor. I don't think that's bad performance on my part, or on their part, it's simply part of engaging in actively hostile antagonism. Roleplaying isn't, nor can it be, regulated simply to standing idly and staring at one another while typing at each other, especially when in the context of the game, and universe it's played in, that wouldn't make sense. I believe this ruling is made in exceedingly poor judgement, and serves to encourage an attitude that stifles, not encourages roleplaying. I firmly believe that I kept what Campinkiller warned me of, in the first situation in mind and acted accordingly. The exact contents of the warning in question is as follows "You need to act with appropriate fear or concern for your life in certain situations with antagonists. Calling someone out over the radio who said they would kill you if you did so is not doing that. Additionally, as a command whitelisted player, you should be giving antags room to develop their gimmicks when able" In this situation, I acted in a manner that was conceivable with the risks involved for a reasonable person to do, especially with the firearm she had in her possession given to a Consular to protect themselves in these sorts of situations, and did such at a time and place that did not end the gimmick in the cradle. In the event that this appeal ends up being denied, I would recommend that the firearm given to Consulars be either removed, or some sort of guidelines for their defensive use be codified.

I've thoroughly enjoyed roleplaying with Ayishah, she's a well thought-out character that's consistent and well done. I'm confident that that they'll make an equally enjoyable command-staff character, and I think their application reflects that. +1