hazelmouse

I'm not certain why this would be so disruptive to security getting their guns? I'd want any operations armoury mapped to ensure it's easy to get to from security, and preferably any department, so the only barrier to security getting their stuff would be a slightly longer walk than they currently have plus hoping the relevant operations role(s) are on instead of hoping a Warden or HoS is on. Other than that, I don't see why we wouldn't warn antagonist players for pre-emptively emptying the armoury in the same way we already do, or why the armoury would really be any less secure than it is already. The process for security would be essentially identical. The point is to emphasize that the armoury is a crew resource, not solely a security resource, even if security are the usual repeat customers.

Lore Impact (Small/Medium/Large): Medium Species: Human Short Description: This is an expansion to the lore of the politics, economy, and religion of the Scarab Fleet. It expands substantially on each of the five primary Scarab ships, including their political alignments, notable features, and introduces a unique banner for each one, in addition to defining the specific practices and beliefs in Scarab Folk Religion, and specifying the mechanism by which money passes through the fleet. Scarab Folk Religion is elaborated upon as an animistic tradition centred primarily on respecting and appeasing the spirits of cosmic bodies - both wild cosmic bodies such as asteroids and moons, and also the venerable and benevolent spirits associated with the Scarabs' own ships. The primary political split of the Scarabs is redefined into a tug of war between anti-coalition and anti-corporate conservatives versus pro-coalition and pro-corporate cosmopolitans, rather than a division on whether they should colonise planets or not. This is not intended to redefine the Scarabs as a faction. This is meant to bring into clearer focus their culture and exact practices so they can be played more authentically on-ship. How will this be reflected on-station?: This gives Scarabs an actual religious framework that they can act out on-station, and it also defines a much more precise political system they can discuss with other characters. Additionally, every ship has its culture and structure much more firmly defined, which I hope will give people a lot more to work with when they're choosing the ship their Scarab comes from. Does this addition do anything not achieved by what already exists?: Yes. It fills in the holes in Scarab lore that have, up to this point, only been filled with the head-canon of Scarab players. 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: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EH_8YN0tDR6w6mav1VokEiCzGLeuWrK7KoGplOKD2Cc/edit?usp=sharing

Agreed, if everyone had easy access to firearms I do think you'd see a similar situation to how bartenders use the shotgun. So long as the new means of accessing firearms isn't trivial and requires very particular jobs to be played, similarly to Warden currently, I don't think it'd be a huge issue. I'd see guns being handed out to crew either for very particular jobs, such as pest control, for expeditions, or for a call to arms during a severe crisis - crew shouldn't have guns unless they have a good reason to have them, and similar regulations to now should apply preventing people from bandying them about on green alert. I think trusting crew with firearms would go a decently long way towards helping foster a culture in which command trusts crew with their own safety on a general basis. I think it'd be a healthy direction for the server, I remember the exact round you're referencing and I did wish at the time that command's stringency on what they trust the wider crew with were laxer. The more situations we're allowed to get into, the more stuff can happen and the more enjoyable the server becomes.

Agreed, I think enforcing some roleplay etiquette will go a long way for this. I can totally see any member of the crew being offered bonus pay to haul a shotgun about and fire it in the rough direction of a pest, but they shouldn't really be getting into a thick of a firefight. I don't think anyone is seriously pushing for everyone to be a hardened veteran that can handily tolerate the conditions of an active shootout. It is. The problem with enforcing any standard on how effective a character can be in combat right now is that SS13's combat is essentially purely mechanical, once you're in a fight with a gun there isn't much to distinguish a character that is experienced in combat from one that isn't. Once we have mechanical maluses for inexperience I think wider access to guns would become a lot less problematic, since someone experienced with them would be actually mechanically stronger in combat than someone that is not.

I think a robust skills system would resolve this. Maluses to accuracy, reload speed, or other elements of using firearms should produce a substantial gap in mechanical effectiveness between the average joe and someone formally trained and experienced with shooting people. Additionally, I don't think it's unrealistic for even a majority of the crew of a ship, especially an independent one where its crew is more broadly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of living in space, to know how to fire a gun. The advantage of this being the case, especially if it were paired with shifting the armoury to operations, is that security would no longer have a total monopoly over access and usage of firearms. Security's current identity is as the department that responds to and resolves all conflict that passes through the ship. I want its grip on that to be weakened to give more of the crew more of a chance to engage with gimmicks and potentially violent situations without security perennially taking the limelight.

BYOND Key: hazelmouse Discord Username: rattydew Character Name: Hazel #S-H9.09 Item Name: Aut'akh Right Leg Item Function(s): This is a prosthetic right leg and foot. Item Description: This is a mechanical limb of Aut'akh design constructed of middling parts by an experienced hand. It is made, apparently, to fit a human of a moderate height, and it is adorned with a decorative red plate on the thigh. There are no runes upon it, or any particular signs of ornamentation besides that red plate - this is a functional device foremost. Why is your character bringing this item to work?: As a prosthetic, she requires it to walk. How did your character obtain this item?: Following a mundane accident in the medical wing that severely damaged her optical sensors, Hazel #S-H9.09 found herself almost completely blinded, unable to work, and without the funds to pay for replacements. Fearful of a default in her loans caused by her time off work, she confided to Ta'Akaix'Nangeren C'thur about her troubles, who offered to have a C'thuric machinist conduct the repairs for a generous fee with the expectation that the synthetic would later pay the repairs back with the profits of selling one of her own limbs. As a self-owned synthetic without savings, her own parts are some of the only substantially valuable possessions she has to bargain with, so she agreed. Afterwards, Hazel #S-H9.09 sought out Ksshzue Hiza. She explained that she needed a replacement leg to be made as cheaply as possible, and queried if the Aut'akh could cash in a few old favours with her commune to arrange for this. After a period of negotiation, an agreement was found that satisfied all parties. The design of the leg was drafted loosely by Nines herself, and then forwarded to a Aut'akh roboticist to be manufactured and delivered. Once it was delivered, the old leg was detached, packaged, and delivered to a buyer in Tau Ceti, and the profits from this transaction were forwarded to Nangeren. What value does this item have to your character, and what story does it tell?: Hazel #S-H9.09's right leg has been an endless source of grief for her. Ever since she was manufactured it has been regularly faulty, often performing sudden spasms at unexpected times. In 2461, this caused her to fall from a height of approximately twenty feet, prompting a loan that has indebted her to the service of Idris ever since. More recently, it caused her to damage her eyes, worsening an already dour financial situation severely. Under usual circumstances, this may have been a death knell. It is only because of the connections this synthetic has made, and the attachments she has developed, that she was able to receive a new leg cheaply enough to pay back her repairs. Only with the help of others can she continue moving forward, in a very literal sense. Sprites: nines_leg.dmi Additional Comments: Some of the described events in the description of this item are in the future. Since having this custom item requires the old leg to have already been sold, I'm intending to only roleplay the loss of the original limb after I know if the custom item is accepted. I'm handling the code implementation myself, see here.

I've worked with Joshie a few times before, in my experience he's an excellent mapper with very good intuitions and technical knowledge. I think he'd be an excellent addition to the team.

This might get particularly awkward now that it has two other airlocks that won't respond to docking or undocking. It'd be easy to run another set of emergency shutters, I think I'll see how it plays out in-game before changing anything - there is a button to close all airlock shutters from both the main airlock and from the cockpit, so you can just close those if you haven't verified all the airlocks are closed.

Just for posterity, I didn't go for this because it would mean setting up anything in the cargo bay (such as a field kitchen) would frustrate access to the port nacelle. Otherwise, if anyone has feedback on the design now that it's in the server, please let me know!

I'm personally happy with the current values for synthetics. Even the higher paid jobs, such as in medical or engineering, are relatively scraping by.

I share this sentiment. Security in expeditions is tasked with keeping the crew safe, and the non-emergency crew in a hostile situation would presumably be staying on or adjacent to the Intrepid. If security has the situation under control and the Intrepid is secure, I don't see a reason for non-emergency crew to not be allowed to stick on the Intrepid occupying themselves with assorted busywork. If security doesn't have the situation under control and the Intrepid isn't secure, I assume the entire crew would be in the process of evacuation anyways? The priority is to allow participation. I don't expect all of the crew to be at the very forefront of the scenario and I certainly don't want to put pressure on storytellers and command to find a bespoke spot for absolutely everyone - just being able to reliably be permitted to leave on the expedition at all and find something to do independently is plenty for me. Otherwise, I can parrot this. For a note, I made mention of administrative action here rather than ahelping it in the round exactly because Odyssey is such a new gamemode and the rules really aren't written yet. It would've been wildly unfair to try to pin that on the particular players in that round because there seriously just isn't a consensus on this topic right now, a precedent needs to be set in order to be broken.

If these numbers are to be understood as canonically binding, how will this interact with synthetic wages? I understand self-owned synthetics are meant to be paid substantially less than human peers. I could see it becoming hard to justify an IPC having financial difficulties at all if they're canonically paid equal to humans per the numbers on the page, especially in some of the higher paying jobs.

I actually really like the idea of an SoP for away missions, I think it would move things in a good direction. I agree it would need to be soft recommendations, not hard rules - something you can point to for a reliable reason to involve people that are volunteering.

I'll keep this brief, but I think there's a serious cultural issue with how command players are approaching the new game mode that I think needs to be addressed. Odyssey is meant to involve service, operations, and research, in addition to the usual roster of security, medical, and engineering that already gets the overwhelming majority of gameplay in Secret. That is why we have been putting so much effort into the game mode, practically the entire crew should be able to volunteer to participate on a consistent basis. There will inevitably be gimmicks that are too high-intensity for full participation, but the standards for exclusion should be extremely high. However, right now, I'm seeing a lot of command rosters denying participation to entire departments on a whim. Often, departments like service, operations, and research aren't even notified or given an opportunity to volunteer, and it's also becoming distressingly frequent for command members to outright refuse to allow their participation at the slightest hint of danger in the Odyssey gimmick. Not just ignoring them, but refusing them to their faces after they've communicated they want to engage. These departments are then left on a virtually empty ship, completely excluded from the round. This is even worse than the exclusion these departments see in antagonist rounds, since the action isn't even accessible to them on the Horizon. It's frustrating, it goes completely against the ethos of what Odyssey is meant to achieve, and I don't think it's acceptable or healthy for the server. I have two thoughts: Unjustifiably barring participation in Odyssey rounds should be a command whitelist issue. It should be ahelpable, and it should get your whitelist stripped on repeated offences. From what I can tell, this is already enforced by moderation, which leads me onto my second point. Command staff should not be barring departments unless it is for extremely good reasons. If it is at all possible for you to involve service, operations, or research, you should try to do it. If they volunteer, you should try your hardest to allow their participation unless it is absolutely infeasible to do so. Service, operations, and research staff should be understood as accepting the potential danger of the expedition by volunteering, and they should not be excluded from doing so except for absolutely remarkable circumstances. If you do bar participation short of those circumstances, you should be in rights to be ahelped and have your whitelist stripped. Right now, I'm seeing a trend of departments being excluded for reasons so petty that they're practically excluded from non-canon odysseys period, since almost all non-canon odysseys have a degree of danger. Roleplay is a long process of finding a way to say 'yes, and', not 'no, because'. I have plans lined up for how to better encourage more departmental involvement in Odyssey, but all of that is going to fall flat on its face if command staff keeps actively going out of their way to exclude large portions of the crew from participation. I'm making a public thread out of this rather than keeping it private because this isn't really a moderation issue, this is an issue with server culture and how we're approaching this new game mode as a community.