dessysalta

Sol and Himeo are openly anti-corporate entities, the former of the two having literally invaded Biesel and shot and killed people. The SSMD seized corporate assets (although it doesn't specify how they did) and protected "their land" from Biesel considering the space used to be owned by Sol. I'd wager to say that Sol has done a lot more anti-corporate and anti-Biesel stuff than the SSMD alone, but here isn't the place to argue. The Wildlands Squadron is also under the PMCG, with flagpatches of the former successor states supplied for the four groups you can openly claim to be a former member of. If this isn't good enough, would an Amapola HOS be allowed to wear anything denoting their former affiliation to the Samaritans? If not, then I don't have anything else but to wait for the ruling on the NSRM/SSRM stuff.

That's a huge part of why I made all of this as a suggestion. I'm not trying to imply there's bad faith on the staff team, but it can be difficult to understand how these conclusions are reached and why they are/aren't continued. The biggest issue is it's a matter of uncommon single-slot roles that you need to apply for and the different animal of moderating something versus creating for and playing on it. I personally haven't applied for staff because it seems like this huge entity where you need to learn so much, so fast, while also handling the nitty gritty that makes the game unfun (plus the amount of players I've talked to who've said words to the effect of "my track record (~3 warnings) is so bad I'd never get a command whitelist/mod position/etc" or "the staff team is out to get players/they make things arbitrarily/expect you to read their mind/whatever else". In order of what you said: - This is fair and I agree for the most part, but in the 2IC XO thread (something I don't want to keep bringing up), despite other devs, CCIA, and lore writers explaining why they disliked the change publicly, their points were shot down, and with that being the only thing the community can see of staff decisions, it felt like a lot of the negative feedback was being ignored. In this instance, I feel it betrays the idea that there are checks and balances with each team, where the optics of it are "Host said no, so it's no". - It would be difficult, but there are instances where decisions made by head staff/devs don't align with what the community or the rest of the teams want. There should be some method of pushing back, and assigning blame to any one individual isn't a good idea. - Strikes in this instance would be a removal from a staff position, not necessarily from the community, unless it's that egregious. Command whitelist players aren't removed from the community permanently for completely overstepping their boundaries even several times, the same logic would apply here. I get that you mean it could pile up to be "5 mistakes out of 995 correct ones means you're no longer staff", but that sort of expectation doesn't exist even for players, even while keeping in mind what I mentioned about staff being held to higher standards. - I'm not suggesting random people be voted in, I'm suggesting the community have a chance to assess whoever's asking for the position prior to it. Even with checks and balances between the branches, senior positions have a lot of authority behind them. My suggestion of having a player-voting system only scratches the surface of what could be done for a process like this. - I agree with you for the most part, but where mistakes are made, it becomes a question of, "should I let this sit and assume they'll improve in the future, or do I voice my opinion about it?" I don't take issue with voicing my complaints here or anywhere else, but I do dislike being barred from opening threads for further discussion about any one thing just because in a single instance some people got heated. I have different amounts of faith in different members of the staff team (which is to be expected, different staff operate in different ways and I'm more or less receptive to them), and I don't always see eye to eye with every developer, CCIA agent, lore writer, whatever. I tried to keep the done as business friendly as possible, but suggestions about how head/staff conduct themselves is almost always going to be prompted by a negative experience or outlook. I didn't want to put a big disclaimer of "I think staff are awesome, actually" because if I didn't already think that I wouldn't be playing.

EDITORS NOTE: A lot of what's suggested here was made with a lot of misdirected anger and self-victimizing behind the scenes. I've since apologized to relevant staff, but this disclaimer is going here because it wouldn't feel right keeping the giant laundry list of how I think staff could be more "inclusive" while also trying to act like I'm their friend, and I don't believe in deleting what I said just because I recognize it was stupid; that's not how taking accountability works. You've been warned, this was made by an upset player in the heat of the moment running off about ~4 hrs of sleep. After a short session of brooding (I admit, some things as of late have had me a bit heated) and reminiscing on things like the 2IC XO thread (and a complaint that it was the subject of), I brought it up to another Aurora friend of mine and they suggested I make a policy suggestion to see how it goes and to gauge how the rest of the community feels. In broad strokes, here's what I'm thinking: I think Head Admins and Devs/Hosts should be elected by the community and not the staff team (or not only the staff team). Complaints should be allowed to be filed towards all of the Headmins/Devs at once, or groups of more than one (if applicable). Votes and re-votes should be allowed without exception. Terms of what will happen or be implemented after votes conclude (especially for high-status changes) must be detailed before the vote goes through to the best of staff's ability. As a final suggestion, staff (admins/devs/etc.) that are the subject of a successful complaint should be on a strike system a la player warnings and infractions. Hoh my god, that's a lot of text, and I apologize for everyone who has to read it, but I had a lot on my mind and thought separating it into more than one post would make me look like an idiot and be total overkill.

pinches her nose and exhales slowly follow for more lukewarm translations

It would be as simple as adding the restrictions present on security uniforms to wildlands flagpatches. In regards to an SSMD affiliate being promoted, I didn't mention it in the post (because she's unavailable), but I asked Read specifically if I could make Kira a HOS after I played her for a year straight with next to no breaks. She said yes, followed up with me after the fact to say yes again, and that was the end of it. Loadout items that can be used openly by anyone, or even just anyone part of a specific faction, should be very clear in telling you who is and isn't allowed to use it if there happens to be actual IC justification for such a thing, which is why role restricted items exist. I bring up again that I had no way of knowing this was a no-go back when Kira took the flagpatch as a warden (and prior to the PR implementing them, I used a custom flagpatch), and with the existence of the above examples of otherwise "hostile" groups' paraphernalia and members being allowed into command, I submit that it's unreasonable to limit this one thing when there are far more egregious cases ICly and OOCly (and how odd it is to not limit wardens, who have a lot of mechanical overlap with the HOS role, but that's neither here nor there). If the loadout item isn't allowed to be used by certain roles or demographics, it should be reflected in code like every other restricted item (see: Imperial outfits, faction gear, augments) or else you run the risk of cases like this where people like me are completely blindsided.

BYOND Key: Dessysalta Staff BYOND Key: MattAtlas Game ID: N/A Reason for complaint: I was told that Kira Vasquez, my HOS, can't wear the SSMD flagpatch she's been wearing for over a year and a half total, and as a HOS for 5 months, because it's "anti-corporate." I don't agree with or understand this ruling because not only did I have no way of knowing this (see: the loadout doesn't restrict it from HOS), but this would imply that the SCC knowingly and charitably promoted an SSMD affiliate and Sol patriot into a command position. It's no secret that Kira is a Solarian-aligned individual and moreover that she's ex-SSMD. She has fought and nearly died countless times for the Conglomerate, in particular she lost an actual leg to the Exclusionists attack and was given enough pay/had enough stockpiled to purchase a vatgrown limb. My SSMD custom item application not withstanding (I get that it's military-adjacent and understand that it's overkill to the Conglomerate), this doesn't make any sense. I think: Sol actively invaded Biesel, and their diplomats are banned from making appearances on the Horizon, plus the animal that is Solarian corporate authority, but their flags and their patches are fine. The SSMD "protected" former Solarian territory and were just as anti-corporate as the rest of Sol. While they engaged Biesellite ships, to these ends I don't think it's unreasonable for a flagpatch of all things to be worn especially where loyalty is not a question; moreover, the SSMD is almost a direct extension of Sol and the SCC is meant to be somewhat politically neutral (for instance, helping Konyang, Moghes, really any place in the Spur that asks, allowing consuls of the DPRA, a nation-state headed by military juntas who execute non-Tajarans openly, allowing Trinarist priests on board, the list goes on) and the idea of banning a symbol that represents a legitimate part of another country's government is compromising that neutrality on a much greater scale (made worse and more bizarre by the fact that it's only command that can't wear it). Biesel is not at war with the Sol Alliance or the SSMD (what is now the SSRM) and has little precedent compared to more radical groups like the League and Front; Szalai was a Solarian officer acting in accordance with the wishes of her government (mostly) and as a somewhat legitimate representative of it. The League and Front were terrorist organizations aiming to overthrow their government. The SCC has members formerly based in Solarian space or that have interests there, Idris and Silversun for example. Restricting the rights of Solarians working for the SCC would endanger those interests especially because the Solarians want to go after them anyways. As long as the symbols don't conflict with their work then why would it be a problem in the first place? Grupo Amapola has a peaked officer cap for the HOS in the loadout despite this particular group having a large amount of, and being founded by Samaritans, widely considered terrorists not only for resisting Biesel, but corporate influence in general (see: the Peacekeeper Mandate and the SCC's goods embargo, not to mention how Mictlan handles corpos generally speaking). If both of these things are allowed (Sol flag/patches and Amapola caps), why isn't an SSMD flagpatch allowed to be worn by a trusted and well-known individual? If Kira was suitable for promotion there should be no reason why she can't display a symbol of her military service that she takes pride in, considering that even if the entity it represents has done "anti-corporate" things it's not being used as an anti-corporate symbol in this context. Solarian patriot ex-military captains and bridge crewmen exist. Ex-Himeans don't have to despise every inch of Himeo to have renounced their citizenship (mine did it because she likes money). I mean, DPRA individuals can be approved to be heads of staff, even if subject to background checks and being fired or charged if they're connected to any radicals—but the SSMD isn't radical in the way that, say, the League is or Sol isn't. The ticket below mentions Himeo and I've mentioned it here, but the SSMD is and was nowhere near the scale of an entire anti-corporate planet I'd argue. It's inconsistent and betrays the idea of complex characters who can be trusted officials without giving up everything they ever held dear that even slightly conflicts with the SCC's principles. Evidence/logs/etc: Ticket contents: Additional remarks: Even if this gets dismissed or is ruled against me, would you settle for NSRM/SSRM flagpatches on account of flags for those two entities being in the works last I checked human lore's channel?

Hell fucking yes.

ATG makes lovable, charming characters with a capacity of understanding that I don't think the average player has. I love what they bring to the table and want to see Hayashi Kuri in command LMAO. Glory to the Tau'ha'nor clan. +1

Tones has an innate understanding of what makes roleplay high and how to write well-meant, interesting characters. From the bar, to medical, to ops, I believe they're next in line for a command promotion. +1

related to above post, couldnt resist posting here (admins sue me) ft. clark, diego, and woe art is by sketchalicious

buy-in was 300, there were 3 other players :]

In fairness, a lot of other weapons are OHKs at close range or barely give you any time to react. 357 and 50 cals do fucked up damage, eswords if done right, like any rifle if you manage to do that, super heavy pistols, the list goes on. PBs are intentionally very powerful. Not really a matter of balance IMO so much as it is roleplay quality. PBing someone and insta-killing them can have a lot of buildup and thought behind it. Shotgun PBs especially do i think like 80 damage on account of being the close-range, single-shot "fuck up this person" weapon.

Most of what I could say boils down to "I don't think I was wholly off-topic" and most of what you and the rest of staff could say is "I think you were." I'd rather eat the warning point that's doing nothing than invest multiple days arguing to meet the same end. Besides, if the host warns me himself, I'm probably doing something wrong. As for retracted complaints being permanently retracted, that's another can of worms and I might make a policy suggestion thread about that, but again, not worth it to argue here.

After some consideration (and speaking with a friend) I don't think investing my energy into this is going to be beneficial for any of us. I've gotten a chance to re-read all of what I said in the original complaint (thank you Wayback), and while I stand by what I said in both the above post by myself and the spoiler below (what I had previously used to respond to Roostercat, but now only something I'm keeping for posterity) I could have handled it differently. I'd like to retract this complaint for now, though I might revisit it depending on how I feel in the future. There are things I could have said differently in this post and in the original and things that are more worth discussing as policy (unrelated to off-topic peanutting that is).

BYOND Key: Dessysalta Staff BYOND Key: Arrow768 Game ID: N/A, forums Reason for complaint: I was given a forum warning for largely explaining the views of the mentioned topic in this staff complaint, the relevant topic being this one. This quote by greenjoe is why I contributed to the discussion. I stated every point that was dissected in the main thread, as well as giving my thoughts about it because they're relevant to the discussion. I wasn't trying to give a list of reasons why the 2ICXO change shouldn't go through. I was giving adequate context of multiple developers, CCIA, lore devs, not to mention countless players contesting the change, and I closed with something along the lines of (I can't get the quote exactly for reasons that are obvious): Among other things, I handled points such as "give us a concrete number of the amount of non-human XOs played" as they were disregarded in the topic that was the subject of the complaint for no good reason, and I compiled many quotes (even a screenshot) of others players that visibly contested the change or how staff handled it. All of these were prudent to give staff (head, etc.) a sense of scale to the point of "there was a large amount of negative feedback." The staff complaint by greenjoe was not, "I am only referring to Arrow," and even if it was, the entire discussion had in regards to the 2ICXO is what sparked the complaint. I consolidated the views of the playerbase without failure and pointed out frustrations that were caused by the implementation and dialogue regarding it. I would bring up the fact that five people reacted to what I said to show they agree with me, but I cannot do that because the post was deleted. Evidence/logs/etc: The warning's in the spoiler. Additional remarks: Locking the thread immediately after I contributed was fine, I agree that it was a lot to read and I personally don't see the reason why anyone else would need to say anything after the fact, but being given a warning and having all of what I wrote deleted is unreasonable. I was not peanutting nor was I shifting the complaint to be off-topic.

"hadii's grassse" says the adventurer liznerd now apparently. this round was fucking amazing

Nothing I can think of.

Creator of the Drek'za clan here. Love to see the inclusion of more Drek'za warriors, and I can attest to Casgam's ability to roleplay. From another Vedhra fan to another Drek'za muscle, I have no doubts they can play a Unathi correctly. +1