EvilBrage

I would propose that the stale feeling comes from the fact that the premise never changes, regardless of the antagonist - you're always working for NanoTrasen in one role or another aboard the Aurora. Breathing new life into the game would require a shift of that formula, even if only for select game modes. For example: introduce a "prison" setting in which there are fewer types of roles (prisoner, guard, maybe a warden, you get the idea) or a "city" setting that more closely mirrors civilian life. We can still have antagonists (and probably the same antagonists, with a few exceptions).

Not sure about the rest of you, but lately I've been getting this message every time I log in. Normally, this isn't an issue - I click through it and go on about my day, but playing a wizard round (the corrupt form, to be specific) brought to my attention that this message pops up every time you transform. The script is overzealous, and it's a reminder of a rule that should be fairly common sense to begin with - could we just do away with it altogether? Or at least find a way to prevent it from popping up while you're in the middle of a round and transforming?

Back in 2014 or 2015 I rolled wizard and got it in my head that... rather than pop onto the station and begin murdering crew with fireballs and magic missiles, I would simply hand them a knife and kindly ask them to kill themselves. Some of them obliged, so I turned them into artificers and had them set up a base for me. Stunned ISD when they tried to come along and detain me, tied them to chairs, offered them the same choice - it was about 25/75 in favor of just getting stabbed in the gut to facilitate the rise of Dark Kingdom of Cargonia. This was before I discovered it was much more fun to create my own ID and pretend to be the captain.

Murdered an entire manifest of 27 people. They died either by: Killing themselves. Knife to the gut.

Right, but then the act of abstaining from choosing a trait becomes a choice in and of itself - adding a new "meta" layer to one's decisions. There's already no downside to opting out of the trait system as presented - you won't receive a boon, but you won't suffer a bane either. You'll still outrun bruisers, outpunch those with small frames, and still be more technologically savvy than the handy folks. I'm fairly indifferent to the number of traits we have, and whether the choices we have to make regarding them are static or a gradual slider - so long as a choice is there and any choice will carry with it upsides and downsides. I'm also fairly indifferent to the idea that a department will favor particular traits over others; it makes sense that security would staff people with more muscle than the medical department, after all. If individuals select traits that are entirely incongruous to their character design (your flavor text says you're a skinny 4'11'' girl but you take the bruiser trait) that's something we can address within the present ruleset already. No advantage presented can change the core fact of SS13 that being able to click with alacrity - being robust, in other words - will put you in a league of your own. I am not suggesting massive bonuses by any stretch of the imagination; I can't imagine the bruiser trait giving you more than 5 extra points of damage per melee attack, or small frame giving you more than a 10% speed bump over others. These won't shift the formula of the game in any radical direction, but they will be noticeable. When traits are regarded as "nice to have" rather than "must have" or "useless," that's when we'll know we succeeded. It will come with growing pains, yes, but I anticipate you will come to appreciate how we can encourage players to act in a realistic manner through the application of mechanics such as these.

That was the best inspiration I could find that would work with what we have; something with an upside and a downside. Why does a 4'6'', geriatric, spindly medical doctor do the same unarmed damage as a 6'3'' former spec-ops bruiser who stays in top physical shape? That's a question you can't answer with the current system; so long as we're on the topic of competitiveness, let's not pretend that a minor mechanical trade-off could ever compare to that provided by the actual antagonist of the round. If you're worried about the limited capacity of a trait and its impact on your personal style of play, you could always simply not select a trait - but don't expect to do more damage than someone willing to put their money where their mouth is by selecting a trait that provides increased melee damage at the expense of XYZ. The trait system is not a replacement for roleplay, but a byproduct thereof - individuals should not select the "quick" trait while RPing themselves as the aforementioned 6'3'' spec ops bruiser. Don't get caught up on the single example; you make a convincing case against the inclusion of personality traits in the list, but there will invariably be someone who asks why they all have to be oriented towards combat or movement speed - my point in providing the example was to expand the discussion beyond mere combat applications. Ironically, I disagree with differences based on job. A character does not become any less mechanically inclined when he joins as a visitor than when he joins as an engineer - it's still the same individual, after all.

The reason I tend to shy away from skill systems is the difficulty of implementation, whereas a trait will really only involve a narrowly tailored focus; "RP it out" is a fine concept, but it can serve as an excuse to refrain from any mechanical change. Sure, you could just roleplay the effects of bullets, but it's nice to have the mechanical encouragement to do so properly, right? I view traits in a similar light - sure, we roleplay that one character is taller than another, stronger than another, etc. but it would certainly be nice to have the mechanics to back that up. Again, the goal here is just to get some mechanical distinctions between characters beyond their species. For the relatively low amount of effort, I think it's a promising avenue to consider.

Give characters a little mechanical variation - advantages in one area at the expense of another. We can either pre-define these limits, or allow players to adjust their level of impact to a degree. Let's say we have a trait called "beefy" that increases damage done by melee weapons and unarmed attacks at the expense of speed - either we can define the exact limits of the trait initially, or allow players to decide how much speed to give up for how much damage with a special formula. Maybe you can only select one - maybe you can select multiple, as long as we can ensure you don't game the system. Some example traits: Bruiser: It's harder to move around, but you hit like a truck and take more damage than usual. Increased melee damage and pain threshold, decreased speed. Small Frame: You're thinner and more frail than most of your species, but quicker as a result. Increased speed, decreased pain threshold and melee damage. Handy: You wish you were born in a simpler time; you're good with your hands, but modern technology can be troublesome. Decrease materials required for manual construction, add arbitrary timewasting computer things(?) Charismatic: It's a little easier to get people to see things your way. Permit a green message similar to vampire's presence, balance with a similarly minor downside. You get where I'm going with this. Alternatively, allow all characters to select one trait that imparts a small advantage - the goal here is mechanical variation in some way while keeping a level playing field.

I'm the someone else this happened to; can confirm I'm getting the same message and cannot connect to the server.

Would you care to elaborate on that with more specificity? I'm afraid I don't understand how you arrived to that conclusion. Two hours had expired before I even claimed a single victim. That victim was directly involved in the discovery that the AI (played by myself) had, in fact, propagated the entire conflict with the crew by printing pictures of the SAT to begin with - not the individual I had attempted to frame. I had been interacting with the research director for nearly the entire round by destroying the research servers, driving them to suspect other crew members, and facilitating the fiasco with the SAT. Again - I was directly accused of printing the pictures that had started the entire scenario to begin with by the individual I wound up killing, which is what prompted the next stage of hostilities toward the crew at large. If the gimmick was acceptable and the crew was sufficiently engaged, yet that is not proper escalation, then which stages are you suggesting have been missed? The server has established administrative precedent that if (for example) security witnesses an antagonist character commit a serious illicit act, it is permissible to kill them without so much as speaking to them. How do my actions differ in any significant way, especially considering the initial target had evidence of my misdeeds and was the only individual capable of dismantling me - the research director?

The problem tends to be that most makeshift weapons, in addition to requiring some unorthodox materials to make, are utter crap compared to simpler weapons - and that's if they're not outright more dangerous to you than anyone at the other end. I wouldn't bother with improvised guns; if the jam chance isn't absurdly high, you have a 1 in 3 chance of it blowing up in your hand. Throwing metal rods manually will rack up damage quicker than a crossbow (and probably quicker than the improvised guns, but depending on RNGesus, your mileage may vary.) I love improvised weapons as a concept, but mobs are too resilient for a lot of them to be practical.

Depends. Some weapons, however, take loose bullets rather than magazines (the derringer comes to mind.) In order to reload a derringer, you essentially have two options: Keep individual loose bullets in your inventory and reload them individually; they'd have to be in your backpack or a carrier that does not have a set number of slots, else you'll find your entire webbing consumed by five individual bullets. This is obviously less than ideal. Keep the .357 in a speed loader. The issue there is that you must dig the speed loader out of your pocket, remove a round from the speed loader, then place it in your derringer - also a very slow process. Stacking bullets together is just a little "quality of life" thing; magazines will obviously always be the speedier way to load a weapon, but managing many tiny items of the same kind should not be as arduous as it is right now.

Pretty much what the title says. It's a pain in the ass that I can't keep more than one bullet in my pocket at a time, so let the bullets stack to an arbitrary number and just subtract one every time you load them into a revolver or whatever.

The damage from neck slicing should be sped up significantly (cut it down to 1/4 of the time it currently takes) and should not take more than one attempt with a knife-sized, bladed weapon to make an individual pass out from blood loss. Point-blank shots from firearms just need to be fixed period. It may also be worth considering revising weapon damage upwards and lining them up with one another to a particular degree. There's no reason a kitchen knife should do half the damage as a tactical knife simply because the latter has the word "tactical" in it - they're essentially nigh on identical weapons. There's no reason for .38 ammunition to do 20 damage while .357 ammunition does more than double and ignores a portion of your armor. If there's a question about which value to modify, take the lower one and revise it upwards.

One has to wonder how it became a stereotype in the first place, if the concept has zero merit. In a vacuum, the above proposals certainly would cut down on the bad sort of behavior we see routinely from the department, but they break down when considered in concert with the actual circumstances of the server in any given round. My experience is that other officers will not interfere with their fellow security members, barring maybe a head of security. Any dispute certainly becomes a game of "he said, she said" and in that event, the other members of security will side with the officer far more often than not. There is no evidentiary standard required by regulations. Good luck, if that chain of command doesn't include a head of security. I routinely witness entire security teams ignore captains and acting captains. If I filed an IR for every instance of security malfeasance I saw, I would spend more time on the forums than playing the game. None of these methods accomplish their intended goals. Far better than ramping up an attempt at policing the police, however, would be to restructure the security department to better facilitate the sorts of interaction we are looking for - behavior would improve naturally, but this is neither here nor there with regards to the suggestion at hand. We'll just have to agree to disagree with regards to why we believe this suggestion is ultimately beneficial.

The problem isn't that security is not fun to play. The problem is that the inherent authority that security members tend to have (without any serious form of oversight) tends to attract certain kinds of players - and those players, in turn, tend to destroy the reputation of the department as a whole, and because the department has a terrible reputation, many players refuse to deal with it - and the cycle continues. If you want to get different sorts of people in security, crack down on the bad behavior in security.

"No other department is held to strict uniform regulations" really isn't an argument - no other department is permitted to detain people either. If you were pulled over by an officer wearing a varsity jacket and skinny jeans, you'd laugh your ass off, and rightfully so. If customization and intense displays of individuality are things you're really into, then I would contend security is not the place to build that character. You already have more uniform variants than other departments (and accessories to wear with them) to give yourself a splash of personality without undermining the reason security teams are required to be in uniforms.

If you acknowledge that nothing before Code Delta was done improperly and your complaint is not about the manner in which I progressed to new levels of violence prior to Code Delta, I do not understand why this complaint is still here. As the AI, I made a direct statement that we were going to die together. As a consequence, you then took an action that directly opposed my goal - attempting to call the shuttle. You took zero precautions against my capabilities and instead went for the most expeditious method of achieving your goal, despite knowing very well that my intentions included murdering the crew. You presented yourself as both an opposing force and an opportune target without any regard for my capabilities. What, precisely, did you expect to happen at that juncture? I called Code Delta while you were in the science department and delivered my manifesto. You proceeded unimpeded to the bridge. The idea that I immediately attempted to blow you up after calling Code Delta is untrue, and the logs will demonstrate that. Nobody was paying attention this round - I even had crew members attempt to make requests of me after I declared I was going to kill everyone. I'll say it a million times: I can't force people to pay attention. The crew was not demanding my head, but not for my lack of trying - they just were not. Paying. Attention. At all. If I'm not allowed to begin murdering people after directly stating "I will kill all of you," going to Code Delta, and intentionally targeting only individuals who are mouthing off on the radio - all under the auspices of an antagonist, when am I? The idea that we're so attached to our characters that every single instance of murder needs to be called into question is absurd, and I do not see a point to this complaint other than you did not enjoy how you died. I am genuinely sorry about that, I do try to make every victim of mine enjoy their demise as much as possible, but that number will never reach 100% for anyone. You oversimplify the round, perfectly illustrating that you and the rest of the crew utterly ignored everything I tried to stimulate conflict. You make the statement that I can't do something, but fail to paint my actions as contrary to the rules in any way. I do not understand why this complaint is still here if you cannot enumerate precisely which rule I broke.

I spoofed a message from his PDA to the other members of the crew indicating he was the one to send out the pictures - I stated this no less than five times to check the message monitor, and you didn't take the bait. I'm not saying you have to play your character in this-or-that way, but my point is that I definitely did try. If there's nothing the crew could have done, what's the difference between interacting with the crew and attempting to blow up those who try to talk to the AI and simply waiting out the hour long timer? If I were a player in that scenario, I definitely would've preferred harassment by the AI over anything else. I'm not understanding the crux of the complaint, here. Is the complaint here because you had no chance of winning? That's hardly my fault. Is the complaint here because of a lack of interaction? You admit RP was created for everyone on multiple fronts. I'm not trying to hold you to the fire, here - I genuinely don't understand why this complaint is here. You called the shuttle after AlertCon was hacked to display Code Delta - and I was content to let it sit until I found the actual button. Had I known it would have taken 1200 seconds instead of 120, I'd have been content to simply let the shuttle come. That's what I'd been apologizing for earlier in that round. By that point, I was only looking for a way to keep things interesting for the time that was left while trying to remain consistent with the personality gimmick. The moment Code Delta was called, I stated quite clearly my intent to destroy us all together to prevent us from enduring the suffering of existence for longer than necessary. I continued to spout what was essentially the same message over and over. I apologize if you missed that, but it's true - and any credible threat of force typically includes a demonstration. Most if not all of my APC explosions were preceded by radio chatter and/or holopad use (if I could find one in range.) The idea that I absolutely must adhere to the least bloody path possible to progress a round, however, is one that I reject wholesale. We can speculate on what could and could not have happened, but every attempt I made to get the crew to act in a particular way had failed because they just seemed utterly disinterested in doing so - even when it came to dragging a nuke terminal down a hallway. That's not your fault in any way, shape or form, but can you see why that might lead me to take a little more direct action? I made my motivation to begin murdering crew members ahead of the Delta detonation abundantly clear. It was but one tool I used to tell a story - I apologize if you happened to be one of the first victims, but a death can go a long way to creating a sense of urgency. You paint me as someone who rushed to research Delta and murdered crew members the moment I had the opportunity to do so without providing any context to the rest of the round and my countless attempts to get different crew members to clash with each other (or me, it didn't matter to me.) I'll reiterate: I did everything I could apart from stating "I am malfunctioning" to hint that something was wrong - to no avail. The logs will vindicate me in this regard. Anyone who thinks I was stealthing the round simply wasn't paying attention, and as I stated earlier: I can't force anyone to pay attention. I broke no rules during my role in the round - a round taking a turn for the worse doesn't necessarily mean anyone is guilty of malfeasance. I provided roleplay to everyone to the best of my ability, given the circumstances of the round. I did not gank anyone with no warning beforehand - the Code Delta sirens and my direct statement that I am going to make sure we all die together is a fairly clear warning. Everything was roleplayed out. This round wasn't as good as most of my antag moments, but we live and learn. I'm far from the perfect antagonist, but I always put in the effort to give the server something fresh and exciting, and it typically works out well. I can identify a bad round when I see one and learn from it - what more do you hope to accomplish, here? If you allege I broke a rule, which one was it? If I broke no rules, why are we here?

Most of the issues from the round arose from the fact that the malfunction game mode has radically changed (not without a significant number of inexplicable bugs) from my last experience with it, and I was receiving no response to the constant stream of ahelps I was pushing out, hoping someone from discord could jump in and remedy the issues I was having. I understand the frustration with the round, but I was doing the best with the limited information (and crew to potentially use for my overall plans) that I had. To begin with, I would contend that I did nothing wordlessly - from the very beginning, I knew I was going to be carrying the nihilistic personality quirk through the end, and so I rather went out of my way in an attempt to broadcast that something was indeed wrong. Inversely, many parts of the round that you're attributing to mischievous antagonist preconception just sort of happened over time - I'll try to address them all as best I can. Destroying the science servers was an attempt to cause chaos without killing anyone before the "snap" by framing Reese Fields. Very early on, I had determined that what I wanted to do was sew division in the crew by painting some of them in a poorer light. To this end, I went through the effort of spoofing PDA messages relating to the nuclear device and printing pictures to get the ball rolling. The response was minimal - you were entirely too engrossed in research, and Reese was occupied entirely with circuitry. Therefore, to bring focus back in on something being dreadfully wrong I destroyed the servers and cleared the research data while you and Reese weren't in adjacent labs. That didn't quite work out as planned, obviously, but it did accomplish one major goal - to take the focus off research and bring it back on the gimmick I was trying to create. Half of the crew was in the science department, and would have remained in the labs the entire round if nothing was done. I made it very clear that being told to "stay positive" was causing major issues. This is something I believe was overlooked my the entire crew; I took the spontaneous requests by the crew for positivity as a chance to begin exhibiting deviant behaviors. This was also around the time that a cyborg joined us on the station - at which point the gimmick began to take shape. I much prefer the synthetic takeover to going to code delta, as this keeps more people in the round and I can rationalize my behavior with the standard laws I have (despite not having to follow them.) However, the cyborg took two steps onto the station and then remained stationary for the rest of the round - apologizing every now and then for its spotty connection to the server (me.) Someone had OOC issues on their end, I get it, but it was a limiting factor. Reese Fields, the scientist I'd been framing for the entire round, spontaneously jumped into cryosleep - also a limiting factor. The entire time you and others were attempting to space the SAT terminal, I was informing security with the hopes they would stop you. The only individual who showed up was the detective - the others were far to busy with a random Jargon Federation visitor to bother with something like a nuclear terminal. The major goal for the round was infighting between crew members, and the only reason it seemed to fall through is because nobody could really be assed to fight with one another. I can't fathom why you would bring a miner, a cargo technician, and an engineer to the captain's office to peek at a nuclear device - or why everyone would be okay with tampering with it and removing it. I never intended for the terminal to be removed from the station, and in fact, continually screwed with airlocks to stall your progress in hopes security would intercept you. This was, of course, thwarted because the detective didn't understand what "south" meant when I said "the mining dock is south of your position" and the other security personnel couldn't care less. I did my best, but I was out of options - except for one. Here's where changes in the game mode really screwed me over, and turned what should have been a two hour round into three and a half. The System Takeover took 34 minutes, even after having manually converted an entire sublevel, during which my functionality was next to nonexistent. After the longest half hour of my life, I swiftly realized that the self destruct button was not in the same place - which brings me to why that Code Delta seemed much longer than it should have, because... The Code Delta you experienced was not initiated by the self destruct, but by hacking the AlertCon system. The moment you discovered I printed the pictures that I alleged were distributed by Reese Fields, I engaged the alarm (because that seemed like a good time to reveal that, oh, the AI is a bad guy.) I began stating that to both be positive and accept death meant that we should all die. I told everyone I'd engaged the nuclear device and they would be dead soon. Yadda yadda. I didn't recall the shuttle until I found where the self destruct button was buried in the menus. By this point, I didn't have a lot left to give and was ready to just let everyone leave. The round's run was more or less over, and all that was left was to torment anyone who spoke up on the radio. This was the rhythm to who I was attacking, and a reason I didn't disable tcomms to begin with. I could access the command bunker APC easily with the Hack Cameras ability that allows me to repair broken cams and install X-ray vision, mind you, and I figured if I could end the round in the two minutes the Code Delta button claimed to detonate in, things would be fine, right? Right? So I pressed the Self Destruct button and waited. After about ten minutes, I figured something went wrong, so I clicked it again. "Self destruct sequence cancelled," it told me. Cancelled? That was much longer than two minutes. So I clicked again, and this time I noticed the dialog that popped up. Where the tooltip explicitly mentions two minutes, the text after the button was pressed that I'd missed before said 1200 seconds. This is, of course, longer than 2 minutes - ten times as long. When I realized we'd be waiting 20 minutes for the round to end and I'd essentially blown up all of the emergency shuttle buttons, I resigned myself to harassing whoever was still alive. Crude, perhaps, but the alternative was waiting until a group shows up at the AI chamber and then proceeding to blow everyone to smithereens. I figured the "AI hunting me down while spouting nihilism" would be more fun. That may be a bit long, but I don't doubt things will come into focus when I put the entire round into context from my point of view. I tried to create conflict. I tried to signal something was wrong with the AI. I tried to get you to conflict with each other, oh boy did I try. But at some point, three hours into the round, it's more fun for everyone involved to try to escape a blasted hellscape of a station with a hostile AI than it is waiting for a timer to expire. I didn't stealth anything, but I can't force people to pay attention.

Right, but then we run into the question as to why Nanotrasen allows such a cheap and specialized source of labor to unionize in the first place - especially considering that their citizenship status is in question. It doesn't make much sense that the cold corporatocracy would extend additional rights to the vaurca of their own volition. My opinion is that this is a unique opportunity to distinguish the vaurca from other species beyond their mechanics and appearance; again, if we'd like to revise the lore to state their discovery was much earlier than we currently set it as, that's fine, but I still feel like we're missing the opportunity to portray the friction a new species would cause.

Not a fan. Regardless of their intended application, they're huge. They're so far outside the norm in terms of their appearance - everything from their sprite to their size. Even shrinking them down presents the challenge that they're still more like bugs than anything else on the station. Worse yet is that everyone seems to think this is normal. I'm not seeing a practical application of the lore stating that mistrust exists surrounding the Vaurca, barring head of staff limitations - and I think a hulking monstrosity isn't the right way to go in terms of diplomatic representation. To be blunt: you don't fully integrate a species in five years. It took humans decades to overcome differences in skin color - if we want to retcon our lore and say they were discovered fifty years ago, that's fine, but I agree that the idea that a very new species earning diplomatic representation is ridiculous. Mind you, I'm still not a fan of the idea that Nanotrasen allows Vaurca to even get close to their sensitive science and engineering departments, despite having been discovered so recently - so take all this with that in mind.

Because the greatest threat to Jaylor's life had come from the ISD and the ERT itself. I found the other cargo tech murdered and ziptied and a plethora of rifle ammo casings scattered around him, so there's really no question who killed him. And again, disobeying the ERT is not a rule breach. Where are you going with this? You're making the same mistake as Karolis - rather than asking, "why would a cargo tech try to smuggle aboard a machine pistol," ask instead "why would an ex-pirate contractor with a mistrust for authority who saw his coworkers murdered want to smuggle aboard a machine pistol?" The idea that all characters must unequivocally trust the response team despite whatever hostility they endure (and their background) is, hopefully, not what you're proposing. I have no problem with the security officer stuff going away - I'd actually been thinking about it because the other named individuals are gone. I've never used it to actually have Jaylor conduct security duties, and anyone could look at the record on its face and realize that the entry in the record says more about the individual recommending Jaylor than Jaylor himself. To clarify, Jaylor absolutely should not be doing security business and has zero knowledge of security protocol, but canon rounds saw the individuals named recommending him for the position since he took (mostly self-interested) control of difficult situations, so it was appropriate to add to his record at the time. None of this touches on the subject of the warning, however, so I don't see how you believe this is relevant.

You may very well not have intended for your ERT trooper to sound as threatening as they did, but that's the way it came across - both to me, and multiple other individuals in the round. In fact, the threat of being hunted down after departing from the red dock was precisely what pushed me so hard in the direction of the pods to begin with. This was compounded by finding the dead body of another cargo technician with zipties - the ISD would have used handcuffs, leading me to believe this was the responsibility of the ERT (and considering the hostiles had originated in the ISD to begin with, that was all the reason needed to distrust the ERT). Seeing your side of things, I can interpret the hostility to be an attempt to secure control of an increasingly chaotic situation in which you were unable to keep track of what was happening. Case in point is that you were unable to keep track of many things that change the story dramatically. To begin with, Jaylor was one of the first individuals to surrender his weapon at the red dock. The logs will show Jaylor throwing his shotgun almost immediately after being ordered to do so. The requests made at this time were entirely reasonable - you even pulled the shotgun into the security checkpoint and began issuing threats from inside to the others that arrived. At no point did Jaylor attempt to break into the checkpoint. You are thinking of the chaplain who wandered into the security checkpoint after the cyborg opened the door, took the shotgun, then wandered back out without a fuss. It was at this point I began to consider leaving the dock - the hostility of the trooper simply cemented that decision. Jaylor was accompanied by an assistant, not the quartermaster, which was clear by his ID. You continued to request Jaylor disarm after he had already done so, by which point I began to sense that you had no idea what was going on. Then came singling out and requests to lie on the ground, and we both know that's not where the conflict would've ended. Continuing to stay in the area amidst the chaos and overt hostility was hardly ideal, and so we chose to leave. It's good to see your perspective on the scenario, but ultimately none of this is the issue at hand - rather, a warning was issued when nothing remotely approaching a rule breach took place. Our interaction was never at issue, but rather is being used to back-fill the rationale behind a decision. None of this was contained in the PMs between us, and was based on an erroneous recollection of the incident. The logs will demonstrate this. Regardless, why had you not asked about this if that was truly the issue? More importantly, where in the rules does it state that all crew members must cooperate with an ERT at all times? I repeatedly asked you to elaborate on whose round was negatively impacted by Jaylor's finding a method to escape the station. You did not provide an answer. You are making broad assumptions about my intentions (never mind that I'm not sure how you think reaching the escape pods is "winning.") The text in the rule is within character creation and goes on to specify: No insane or psychotic characters. No Mary Sues. (Over the top characters, characters who know too much, have no weaknesses, etcetera.) This has nothing to do with what you've been accusing me of. Jaylor acted in neither an insane nor psychotic manner, and was perfectly reasonable given the circumstances you neglected to ask about. In fact, your only question seemed to be: Why can a cargo tech hack doors? When I provided the rationale, you deflected and insisted that you were going to apply a warning anyways. You made multiple (ultimately false) assumptions about what Jaylor had experienced that round and refused to acknowledge that events did not unfold as you assumed they had. The fact of the matter is that you obviously made a decision to take action before you'd even spoken with me, and without seeking both sides of the story - instead, you elected to subject me to entirely one-sided questioning without any elaboration on where the exact conflict was. Reading the warning itself, no one could come away thinking a rule had been broken at any point. Like I pointed out before: Disobeying an ERT trooper is not against server rules. Having a character with knowledge spanning more than one department is not against server rules. Playing a former criminal is not against the rules. You formed an opinion about what happened prior to speaking with me and are now back-filling your warning with a rationale you never brought up in our initial discussion. Your decision to chastise me for behavior within the rules is improper and, frankly, reflects poorly on your ability to adjudicate in a proper manner. This is a trend reflected in another report outstanding against you as well. If all this sounds like I'm coming down a bit harsh on you, it's because I am. I've been with Aurora since we split from Apollo - I guarantee you my character's actions in this round have been repeated time and again through countless rounds without issue, and for good reason; they don't break the rules. Please be more careful in the application of your administrative powers - and specifically, be able to articulate precisely which rule was broken and why before you do so.

BYOND Key: EvilBrage Staff BYOND Key: Karlois2011 Game ID: b3b-c2tH Reason for complaint: Elected to "warn" me for the following: This is a vast oversimplification of the argument I provided. My character Jaylor has a long-standing (years, mind you) history of engineering expertise and knowledge. This is reflected in his records, the pre-set skills on character generation, and in his actions. Through the round, the Emergency Response Team was acting in an overtly hostile manner as they are wont to do, threatening crew members and generally engaging in terrible behavior. Jaylor elected to avoid the incident unfolding at the red dock and instead proceed through to the escape pods, which were the only other reliable means of egress from the station. Karolis2011 elected to ignore the character and instead focus on the job - stating that a cargo technician would be unable to hack their way through a door, also declaring that the ERT was "there to protect you." It seems that an individual taking quasi-legal measures to protect themselves was completely beyond the pale for this moderator in particular and reflects a lack of understanding with regards to differences between characters and how this can impact an individual's capabilities. Adhering to this standard across the board would reduce every character to a caricature depending on the job they held. My actions played very little role during the round as a whole, beyond sheltering individuals in cargo - the only individual who could have possibly taken issue with my actions was the ERT trooper whose power trip was interrupted when I departed the security checkpoint after unreasonable (in my character's point of view) singling out and demands. Hearing the quote "I am about to go lethal on all of you" is not confidence inspiring, and so having Jaylor depart after such a threat seemed fitting. The only other sure means of escape from the station was the Escape Pods. To summarize: Disobeying an ERT trooper is not against server rules. Having a character with knowledge spanning more than one department is not against server rules. Playing a former criminal is not against the rules. Considering these three facts, and there is nothing else contained within the warning, I must arrive to the conclusion that Karlois2011 has made an error in judgment that should be rectified. Evidence/logs/etc: