maxspells

Overall I love the idea of unifying bar and kitchen. It really does feel like they are separated by a lot of open space nobody uses basically turning it into an endeavor to choose between. Closer means more rp between the two will inevitably happen, they can work together on menus and stuff, and makes wait staff more appealing to play by having both bartender and cooks in close reach. I think there's a lot of unused open space in the hallway seating area, which could be trimmed back to add some more rooms to the left of the bar imo. People do use the private booths, and imo you should add the roulette gambling room (and you should also re-add the microphone stage if possible for an open mic/karaoke gimmick I want to do) instead of that large conference seating room at the bottom left since we already have those conference style rooms in the third deck lounge.

It's important that there are safe spaces where they can play without being exposed to that stuff. If people want to go to 18+ communities, there are a plethora of others to choose from.

I'm super against it. We already have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual content on the server. If people are talking about things that are making people uncomfortable, then they should bring it up to the moderation team. If a player is able to play on the server and have fun and follow the rules and contribute to the story (ie no sexual content), then it shouldn't matter whether the person you are interacting with is underage or old. If implemented this will go one of two ways: 1. A witchhunt performed by the moderation team on confirming the age of anyone who seems "immature" every time it comes up. 2. ID Age Verification, which was already unanimously turned down by the admin team. We already take the zero tolerance stance on mature topics, so if the issue is just that you are personally uncomfortable possibly playing or interacting with someone who might be or is underage, that is valid. You probably shouldn't play here.

Reporting Personnel: Dr. Tesset D. Dresden Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Psychiatrist Personnel in Question: Vladimir Borya Job Title of Personnel in Question: Bridge Crew Reason for Review: [ ] - Extended Arrest History [ ] - Grievous Infraction on Record [ x ] - Other: Possible danger to themselves and/or others. Notes: Vladimir Borya was admitted into medical ward after injuries he apparently sustained after a teleportation malfunction of some kind. During his treatment, he was shouting about "Fourth Dimensional beings" and other concerning concepts. After his surgery, he was discharged to our recovery ward, which is where I stepped in to speak with him. On my assessment, Vladimir Borya was unable to discern the correct year, or his current location. Furthermore, he then proceeded to pull what security later identified as a loaded .45 caliber pistol, pointing it at an inanimate decorative desk toy and pulling the trigger three times. I am unsure if the safety was on, or if the firearm malfunctioned, but afterwards, he dropped the pistol on the ground and mentioned changing it out for a new one. I asked him to leave, which he did. I then immediately took the firearm to security, and relayed what happened prior to the shift ending to an officer Piotr Tomic, who confirmed the firearm was loaded. It is of my professional opinion that Vladimir Borya may be a risk to himself, or others, and should be placed under a Psychiatric hold until his mental stability can be confirmed and established.

Should records be pulled from his Psychiatric Evaluation: Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report Attending Psychiatrist: Dr. Tesset D. Dresden, Clinical Psychiatrist Subject: Officer Godwin Jovanovic Date: March, 2468 Reference Event: Holodeck Bombing Incident (March, 2468) I. Reason for Evaluation This evaluation is submitted in response to concerns raised by command staff and fellow officers regarding notable behavioral changes in Officer Godwin Jovanovic following the holodeck bombing incident. Observations suggest an increase in compulsive behaviors and hypervigilance impacting his day to day duties. II. Relevant Medical and Psychological History Officer Jovanovic has a documented history of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) prior to the March incident. Symptoms were previously managed and did not interfere with his occupational performance. Following the holodeck bombing, Officer Jovanovic was formally diagnosed by myself (March, 2468) with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This diagnosis was based on the emergence of: Heightened paranoia and environmental scanning Repetitive compulsive behaviors beyond baseline OCD presentation Persistent anxiety related to perceived threats III. Behavioral Observations Based on direct observation and corroborated reports from security personnel: Officer Jovanovic repeatedly checks and recounts the ammunition in his firearm multiple times per shift, including during inappropriate or potentially unsafe moments (e.g., during active processing procedures). He conducts frequent, often redundant, rituals, such as chanting or reciting prayers, counting out loud, etc. These behaviors are consistent with a PTSD induced hypervigilant state, compounded by preexisting OCD tendencies. The compulsions appear to function as maladaptive coping mechanisms to manage perceived threats and anxiety. IV. Risk Assessment At the time of this evaluation: Officer Jovanovic has not demonstrated intent to harm himself or others. There are no recorded incidents of weapon discharge or direct targeting of individuals. He remains aware of his actions, though some compulsive behaviors appear automatic in nature. While current risk is assessed as low, the combination of hypervigilance, compulsive weapon checking, and socially improper rituals (chanting) introduces a potential for escalation if symptoms are left unaddressed. V. Conclusion Officer Jovanovic is experiencing PTSD symptoms, interacting with his pre existing OCD. His current condition reflects a mind attempting to regain control in the aftermath of trauma, rather than malicious or reckless intent. It is my professional opinion that Officer Jovanovic is not presently unfit for duty, but his condition warrants active intervention or possible temporary reassignment should symptoms persist or worsen.

We are simply using this example and explaining the reason why it's behavior that we need to step in for. We don't want to encourage or permit people to sidestep roleplay or other departments and players in order to get what they want. If we handle it this way, then it would make the behavior feel like it's something we want to encourage/permit albeit it with possible IC consequences. We do not want to encourage this behavior in the context you provided, so it was handled OOCly. You disagree, and we understand that so we can agree to disagree on it, but pretty much everyone from a moderation background and the players in the thread have all unanimously agreed with where the line has and is. We are not attacking you, we get it it's a complicated game and it's hard to learn where the lines are. The reason it's not severe enough for an admin note, is purely because we want to allow a lot of breathing room for players to get a feel for these things as they are learning, and players who refuse to acknowledge the lines, or repeatedly step over them despite being talked to about it, then we would absolutely escalate it further. You are bringing up a potential rules change and a culture change, which isn't a bad thing. We're not attacking you about it, but in the examples you gave, giving players leniency to bend the rules in those aspects are not something we are probably going to entertain for the sake of server health. Also want to note that science is not unique in this, this has been the standard for every department. Physicians cannot do surgery, investigators cannot arrest, engineers cannot set up atmospherics, hanger techs cannot go mining, etc. The correct answer is, yes. You should make new characters for each facet of the job.

Rules exist to pick up where systems fail. In a roleplay video game with infinite combinations of possibilities it is impossible for us to draw a line in the sand for every combination of circumstances that may or may not come up. It's up to the moderation team to handle these on a case by case basis. The line is wiggly, and in my opinion and the opinions of the moderation team involved, you stepped over it. Which is fine and it's not a big deal. Still, we are here to enforce a standard and quality of roleplay, and it falls apart if we just let people do whatever without stepping in and rely on CCIA to handle everything. Not everyone is going to agree with where the lines are and it's fine, we get it. We understand the line is wiggly which is why you likely weren't noted or banned or given an official warning, as context matters. Intent matters. Will hacking be against the rules when the new skills system is finished? Depends on the context, but the intention of skillpoints was never to allow people to sidestep roleplay or the reliance on interdepartmental cooperation.

These rules are in place to make sure everyone is participating and that all roles are important and needed. Had you tried to interact with other people or departments to get what you needed, this likely wouldn't have been an issue. Intent is important when enforcing rules, and your intent was "I need to get this thing, I'm going to break in and get the thing by myself instead of roleplaying with others to get the thing" which is the crux of the issue and the heart of the rule ie powergaming. As you put it yourself, had you simply asked someone about where to get wood, they likely would have pointed you to the garden, or even another place you could source wood from. (Like the bookshelves in the library, the chairs and tables in the cafe, etc)

I like when people play off characters, though. Nothing against mains but I love when people get new characters in rotation, as sometimes roleplaying with the same characters feels like an rpg where you've exhausted all your dialogue options with each other lol. I feel like this would decentivize playing multiple characters, and the meta would become playing one singular main character. Maybe if it was tied to your account? But then again it kind of falls into the trap where you are inadvertently punishing the players who can't play as often as everyone else.

Counter argument, I think having the option to play someone that is unskilled in CPR is good too. I like playing stupid characters and I think there are use cases where someone might not know it. Inherently I think this creates RP on its own ie "What do you mean you don't know CPR?", and medical/sec doing training exercises/refresher courses in game to teach someone/re-teach how to do it properly, and ICly this could simply be chalked up to not paying attention during their initial training, or forgetting it. I had this idea to give all jobs a baseline amount of skills that allows them to place the bare minimum amount of skills needed for their job, with more skill points being given the higher their age is over their minimum age requirement for the role. Every three-five years is another skill point or something, and jobs can be re-designed and re-balanced around three different tiers: the young upstart, the experienced professional, and the ten years+ in the field veteran. This, I think, would fix a lot of the issues regarding 90% of the characters being played as the minimum age, and helps softly disincentivize playing minimum age, and would help the "corporate flagship ship full of 20 year old kids" awkward reality which has sort of plagued us for a while. Overall I think this would create more realistic and varied characters too. This would need balancing depending on the job and occupation, rather than flat restrictions and need tweaked on a case by case basis since a veteran security officer might be 35-40, while a veteran surgeon or medical doctor might be 50-65 years old, etc

moe shop for Ungnyeo is so funny. Also gone guru basedbasedbasedbasedbased I'll do my 3 mains right now Tesset: Josie: "You should want a bad bitch like this" 💅 Kiki LaRue: