EvilBrage

Aha I'm older than you! I'm older than all of you! Aha! Erm, clothed 19 year old non-druggie. Who has played when I should have been doing homework. Except for me! 23 years old, I'm pretty much a security cadet in real life.

, this was never really in doubt.

I didn't participate in this round and I've only gathered these observations from reading the posts here, mind, but it seems like Valk armed the nuke and was hoping someone would come to force him to disarm it - his plan was to give up in the likely event that he was confronted about the issue, but no such thing happened. This appears to have taken place before the crew transfer. After the transfer was called, Valk elected to simply leave the station and the armed nuke - it wouldn't be terribly in-character for him to arm a nuke, wait around, and then disarm it just because the crew was leaving. Having a team to back him up would have vastly increased his options in dealing with the Aurora, but he was gimped from the start and it only got worse from there; again, I wasn't there, but I don't see much he could have done differently. Shit rounds happen.

However, the question becomes: Is this something we want to do? Sometimes, your extended round may run into five or six hours because the players involved want to continue, and in others it may barely reach the two hour mark because an influx of players have joined and they want to delve right into the action. Either way, that's a decision for the players online at the time to make through votes - not us at the forums to cram down their throats. People voting for a round to end is not a problem that needs fixing as this suggestion implies, and there's no reason you can't pick up on your story from where you left off in the next round - just think of it as a quick intermission if you like, but the answer lies within how you deal with the vote and the transfer rather than placing the blame on the people who would like a new (and perhaps bloodier) start for their own stories.

Why not just shoot them manually after they talk? The amount of coding this would require doesn't necessarily justify the tiny reward, if you ask me. Then again, maybe Scopes or Skull will get bored and do it for funzies (because this really does happen in the world of coding. My world of coding anyways.)

If I had my way, AI players would be whitelisted. Anyways. One interpretation is that the AI was obeying the captain to both protect them from your mutiny (law 2) and follow their commands (law 3) according to their rank (captain) - which supersedes everyone else's needs and orders because they are indeed the highest ranking crew member on the station. The AI does not have a law that states "if the command staff agrees to overthrow the captain, you do not recognize his authority" just like security borgs do not have a law that states "you must follow space law." He could very well have been interpreting the laws given to the best of his ability. Unless the captain explicitly told the AI to siphon air and generally do things that could be harmful to other crew, however, the last few actions don't really fly (unless there was a very, very convincing captain.)

This really comes down to employment records. I'm a bit stricter than most in that regard - no employment records means no additional access, job changes (to something other than assistant), or promotions - no exceptions. If you had no records and they didn't know you (let's get real - Aurora has around 400 unique players, you have to make an effort to stand out) how would you expect them to react? On the other hand, I'd like you to outline these "same people who keep getting nonexistant jobs" for us so we have a better idea of what it is you're talking about.

Fun is the name of the game - so if a majority of people aren't having fun and think it's time to move on, regardless of the round type, I believe that's a decision we should respect. It's irresponsible to make a majority of players sit through a round that they really don't want to play so that a select few can get their chair RP on. If anything, I'd suggest we decrease voting limits during extended rounds because the reason given for the two hour limit (that is, "an antagonist is winding up to make things happen") does not apply.

Not to mention, in addition to harassment you'd also be guilty of failing to follow an order (if an individual wanted to interpret it as such) - so there is indeed a bit of an extra risk for voicing your innermost thoughts about Captain Douchebag.

The word "continuity" on this server kind of makes me titter like a schoolgirl to begin with. If we stick this change in we'll do what we've always done - take the parts we like, throw out what we don't, and call it another page in our multi-author space novella.

I don't see why you have to treat rounds with antagonists differently - are you preparing yourself because you know there's a traitor? If so - stop. You're only sapping your own enjoyment. Treat every round like an extended round if you're not a traitor and accept that the only difference with this game mode is that a few people might die; I promise you'll enjoy this game a lot more. On the other hand, forcing people to play in a round that they do not want to play in is what sparks ridiculous situations that would never fly in real life. When's the last time you saw someone break into a bar for a drink in real life? Now how about on Aurora? Exactly. I also encourage you all to read the "Antagonists and Conflict" section of the rules very carefully, and you may be pleasantly surprised that your strange ideas may be a bit more feasible than you'd first assumed. Personally, I've wanted to beat people up and take their ID's to rob them of their credits, which is a believable motive for a poorer individual who doesn't have many credits - but on the other hand, you wouldn't want to kill them without warning and jack their ID so they can't respond or call for help. It's not about the end-result, it's about the journey - the reason we had the antagonist objectives removed in the first place is because they would typically be completed without involving the rest of the crew in their fun. I will say this, though: My experience is that this has not necessarily been true of late; I know I'm not the only person that has been complained at for relatively minor things - even things that had been entirely acceptable in the past, and in the spirit of honest criticism, I think that a few members of the staff are a bit "proactive" in shutting down conflict before it has a chance to start. I won't tell you your business, but my personal administration policy (back when I was bold enough to take the job) has always been to react. If a guy stole a laser gun, let's see what he does with it.

I disagree. This is about establishing a pattern of behavior that needs to be curbed - if we're forbidden from bringing up past instances, how will we ever establish that pattern? And also take the nature of Sue's dismissal into account, and then re-read these two quotes. If you still don't believe there's a problem, then I don't know how else to convince you.

I brought up this instance as well as the "decapitated a fleeing suspect with a revolver while detective" subject. A little physical abuse to support a mean character is great, but given the other posts I linked to, that's not what this is - this is an angry player venting their frustrations under the guise of character flaw.

The difference between a harm baton and a disarm baton is a few seconds of stun time (skewed favorably towards disarm, ironically) and 15 points of force damage. The minimum amount of damage to the chest required to suffer breakage is 40 - so unless there is some sort of "critical hit" system that's been installed lately, it's impossible for Ana to have hit him two times and caused a broken ribcage. I'm more inclined to say it was four. This should not be the main focus of an OOC complaint, however, and I do encourage that particular section of conflict to be resolved ICly through the Duty Officers. However. While what Frances says is true - that there is no solid evidence of anything particularly damning that Sue has done, I doubt that Chaz, Jackboot, Rusty, Cassie, Gollee, Tiber, Zonk, Starfish, and myself are all blowing our interactions with Sue out of proportion and there truly exists no problem. This entire thread should serve as a reminder to take screenshots when you see the behavior in question.

Some of them are fairly old, true - but some are also fairly recent. All I'm trying to do is explain why I feel the way I do when I see Ana on the crew manifest and display the pattern that's lead me to my conclusions in the hopes that maybe she'll take some of it to heart and maybe even change some minds. If not? That's fine. Again, this is all my opinion, not a declaration of unequivocal wrongdoing.

Let me take this in another direction, then - do you think Ana is the slightest bit inappropriately hostile towards others? Coupled with the extremely frequent anti-antag posts you pepper around the board, how else are people supposed to interpret your overall attitude other than "I hate antagonists and I pick jobs with guns because I want to remove them from the game?" That's what you've more or less admitted in one of the above links.

Read the previous post, and then read this. You seem incapable of separating a character from a player. Rather than "your character," I frequently see "you" instead. You seem intent on defaming the players themselves, rather than simply dealing with the characters. Your decision to pick apart my post, justify every little piece of it, and throw insults back at me is exactly what I am talking about when I mention your hostility as a player, not Ana's hostility as a character. I'm trying to help. I repeatedly stated that this was my opinion on your behavior. You can either take criticism as a means to improve, or you can point the finger at everyone else - your choice.

As Frances mentioned above, while the method of subduing the perpetrator was not altogether inappropriate, it was rather unprofessional to order someone around in such a manner and then cite the easiest law to book someone for (that is - insulting an officer) and then chase them down under a legal pretense. This isn't the first time Sue has done this with Ana by a long shot - I can recall an instance before the detective and (my) forensic technician ID's were separated in which Ana repeatedly violated orders in an attempt to arrest the character who took the detective revolver - despite both individuals carrying the exact same title of "forensic technician." Specifically, she continued to set the individual to "arrest" despite being ordered to cease and, when the two met, decided the best course of action was to immediately throw a flashbang at them. Why anyone would ever promote an individual with a long-standing record of such behavior is beyond me. This aggression is so intense and repetitive that I actually begin to wonder if this isn't some purposeful act on the part of Ana - but rather aggression on Sue's part. I can't say I've had a pleasant interaction ("pleasant" meaning "fun," not necessarily platonic) with this character ever, on any of my nineteen different characters, something I can't say about any other player or character. Let's also not forget the incident in which Ana unloaded the revolver's entire ammunition reserve on (and ultimately decapitated) a fleeing, handcuffed suspect. I know I'm not alone in that this brazen hostility leads me to avoid any character that I know Sue to be playing. Again, this particular instance may not have been particularly cringe-worthy, but in my opinion there's definitely a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.

I'd like to reiterate this, because it's important. I am very good at being an asshole AI - what I mean by this is that no matter how well a law is written, I will be able to bend, twist, and eventually break it if I so desire. For example - by simply being on the station, the crew is actually contributing to the station's degradation and rot, thereby forcing my hand to do something to protect my station. It also follows that affecting the crew in this way will cause them to attempt to modify me, thereby forcing me to prevent unauthorized personnel from tampering with my equipment. But I also have to protect the crew to the best of my ability, so the natural solution would be to have the security borgs arrest everyone and place them in the permabrig where they will be safe and sound. If I did this with the basic lawset, I would probably get BWOINK'd. Why is that? Because I'm being a dick. The laws were not, are not, and will never be completely foolproof (lawyers constantly prove that even with a giant book of stipulations and assurances, there's always a loophole) and so we must actually follow the spirit of the lawset we've been provided. No. I disagree. If it's not written, it's not there. You could argue that the second law means that "giving priority to their rank and role" means that Central Command has a more pivotal role and rank than any of the plebs onboard - and the moment code delta was requested, I could easily deny it by citing laws one, three, and four. And again - if this were an actual law, I wouldn't even need to be a logical-asshole to go ahead and approve every order that every crewman claimed was faxed from Central Command. I've always seen "Code Delta" as something you would have to modify the AI's laws to enable - an extra failsafe, if you will - as evidenced by the fact that normal and even traitor AI's are incapable of enabling Code Delta.

Bombs everywhere are always okay at any time - this is especially true if your bomb is contained within a package with "Bob-omb" written on it. On-topic though: Could Houssam's execution have been performed better? Yes, yes it could - if he knew the code words and believed himself safe but the traitor wanted to kill him anyways, they could have demanded to talk in private and then executed him that way, unless there was a pressing danger we've not been informed of. Was making fun of the traitor a bad idea? Yes, yes it was. When someone has cleared out the entire armory's worth of weapons and a crew member wants to talk down to them, I actually revel in said crew member's head flying off in an arc, and despite the fact that it was only brought up once, it's a very solid point. Like I tell my friends, "talk shit, get hit." Did anyone break any rules? No, no they didn't. So was this complaint a good idea? Yes, yes it was. While not explicitly against the rules, if we begin to see a slew of complaints crop up with the same behavior, that's when we can start pointing fingers and accusing people of being shitlords. That's what this forum is for, really - if someone broke a rule and deserves a banning, we have ban request forums as well.

Here's my perspective. We are playing a game that, through code, allows for such things as theft, kidnapping, dismemberment, murder, terrorism, cannibalism, and any number of other traditionally offensive themes (why we even have a PG-13 rule when our characters can explode into balls of blood, gore, and entrails is beyond my comprehension.) And now we're complaining about the use of a word. Of all the things we could be offended at, we choose reference to religion. If I saw a traitor chaplain shouting "allahu akbar" while detonating a bomb? I would laugh. If I saw a chaplain making jokes about catholic altar boys? I would laugh. If I saw a chaplain condemning the kitchen because none of the equipment is certified to provide kosher meals? I would laugh. You're perfectly within your rights to be offended; the rest of us are perfectly within our rights to ignore your offense. You can ignore my offense to a particular subject if it makes you feel any better. My point is, if something is so terribly offensive to someone that they simply can't bear the thought of an anonymous individual across the internet mocking their religion, then they have a very poor grip on the elements that comprise this world of ours. They would have a heart attack if they discovered how many people truly despise their religion for no comprehensible reason. No, we shouldn't be insulating people with rules prohibiting certain behavior for fear of offending them - just like we shouldn't insulate the chaplain from harm when they are attacked because of their ravings. Allow everything, endorse nothing. Don't use that word "offensive." Don't cry out for change. Recognize the opinion for the ignorant drivel it is and move on.

This is the crux of the issue. I've made my opinion clear in this thread, but to sum up the important bits in a tl;dr version: The ability of a captain to maintain a firm grip on his crew should not come from OOC reassurance that he cannot be selected as an antagonist, but from leadership qualities that the individual character can exhibit. This is not the case at present. Loyalty implants are a de facto "end conflict" button, especially since paperwork isn't followed to the letter and there are no repercussions since the presence of a traitor makes the round non-canon. We can still keep these roles from being selected as antagonists from the round start without using a Deus Ex Implant. Just like we have age and race requirements for various head roles, we can also stipulate lack of criminal history and affiliation with terrorist organizations for Captain and Head of Security roles.

Lack of fear is a problem that can't be addressed by a simple sound change, I promise you. Then again, new sounds are always good. I'd volunteer to do the legwork on the sounds to turn them into the OGG files the game uses.

I think the issue is with what the loyalty implant is perceived to do, rather than Bokaza's individual call. Would the action taken have been acceptable if the captain did not have a loyalty implant? Absolutely. Personally, I think it's acceptable either way, but I can empathize with how individuals would perceive lack of obedience as ignoring the loyalty implant. After all, the implant can force a character to go against everything they believe in (if "what they believe in" happens to be anti-NT) and push out the influence of a god - I can understand how some people might think it to be an end-all in terms of determining character motivation. Which is why I asked for the loyalty implant's place on our server to be evaluated (since it has much more dire consequences because we, you know, actually follow the lore) a long time ago to the chagrin of many. It is quite easily the single most crippling circumstance to RP - to the point where it's nearly paraplegic. Any captain or head of security who falls outside a very thin margin could quite easily be called out as ignoring their implant - sure, a HoS who lets some minor crimes from a good-natured assistant slide is an interesting avenue to explore, but is undermining the law in NanoTrasen's best interests? You see where I'm going with this. tl;dr Bokaza is love, Bokaza is life, down with loyalty implants.

Because please. This is something we need to know so we stop calling votes early. Alternatively, code a hard inability to crew transfer within 30 minutes of the last one.