Jump to content

Marlon Phoenix

Regular Members
  • Content Count

    5,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Marlon Phoenix

  • Rank
    Faithless

Personal Information

  • Interests
    interesting stuff

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey
    marlonphoenix

Recent Profile Visitors

5,513 profile views
  1. Language in the past was primarily based on class. You can tell a lot about a character's background by the language they are speaking. Language is also a powerful method of reinforcing social groups. Language is one of the important elements of expressing a character's culture, alongside clothing for the sprite. Call it a clique or not, but friend groups in-character more often than not share a language. Creating more languages with our limited slots will make these groups smaller in size and more numerous. It could be interesting. The break up of the major languages for humanity would reinforce the importance of basic so that would be neat. Or superfluous. Do we have any data on the languages on Bay and its impact on anything?
  2. Those all make sense to me and i understand your reasonings. I think I'm primarily worried then about having to choose between augments i want and some tshirts i want in the custom loadout. The prosthetics modular nature were an appeal for people and the ones that cost points came with a theme and mechanics for a specific department. It also removes our ability to play autakh that have fully undergone the rituals to become a FBP. How augmented do you want to see unathi on station and how much sacrifice do you want in terms of loadout for it? Character customization is one of the only major avenues of character expression.
  3. DM sleepywolf and the deputies about stuff friend; I'm no longer on the lore staff; I can only talk about the history and stuff. And as we see all that is being subject to change.
  4. Yes, theyre one if the two radical religious movements born directly from the apocalypse the unathi dealt with. Doomsday cults after the doomsday.
  5. The autakh were made to resist the cold. They handled exposure better than the regular unathi. They didnt spend the entire time buried in igloos, silly. As a whole a roadmap of these changes for players to come to terms with. Every member of administration has voiced wanting autakh removed entirely, so I believe these changes are permanent and irreversable. Having it and the continued future dismantling of the faction come out of nowhere will do harm to the unathi subcommunity. Please create an open and honest roadmap for the future.
  6. Hiding the names of people on staff complaints would not an effective change; it would alert the same number of people of the complaint and context clues can easily out the poster. And if the complaint ends up not escalating to disciplinary action, and is only kept as a note for tracking this behavior longterm, it still creates a lot of risk for the poster without garuntee of immediate redress. Having the relevant department heads have access to these reports with the oversight of all of them is an effective method for all the reasons stated earlier.
  7. Having these reports that are logged accessible by heads of staff sounds agreeable to me. The net of people is wider but with it all formally logged by these ppl and the higher ups, rather than the messy discord DMing, you can more easily note and track any problems and have more effective oversight. So i agree with skull.
  8. This suggestion is focused on complaints about staff and covering the large hole and inconsistencies pointed out well by Arrow, and my specific concerns about intimidation and fear of retaliation baked into our current system. I think it's a seperate suggestion to encompass regular player complaints in a report system if i understand your post correctly. And thank you for your support.
  9. One of my main arguments is we really already have confidential complaints, but its in the hodgepodge way you identified as an issue. While it's reasonable to say that someone can use context to infer who complained, it is still a good practice. Not every complaint has to lead to an investigation that can tip off someone. It's almost a garuntee that you or a head admin would contact someone that gave them something concerning in a report, and they'd be able to communicate and decide if they want to pursue the matter (even if it means outing themselves or not if the evidence is contextual)
  10. We can already make confidential reports by DM'ing a member of staff and staff has, does, and will act on these including punishments. The purpose of this report system is for a formal log of these complaints that has the double benefit of allowing people to make the same manner of complaints but in a way that is visible and logged by all four of our heads and thus easier for them to track and put into potential patterns of behavior. If six people DM Skull about a Developer engaging in misconduct then he does not need a public staff complaint to remove them. However, scattered DM's to different staff members is not an effective method of monitoring staff misconduct. This is not an anarchist server. If skull and garn lose faith in someone, they are gone. We already have the buck stop with skull, arrow, alberyk, and garnascus at the time of this thread. All four of them will see these reports. So each other.
  11. There is no doublethink going on here. Staff have been dismissed for misconduct. Ergo, staff are capable of misconduct. That is not the same as saying all staff are engaging in misconduct. Your argument is only rational if no member of staff has ever engaged in misconduct. You are also mistaken in the nature of this suggestion. Please refer to this specific section: To reiterate again, Promoting a formal method of bringing grievances about misconduct is the nature of this proposal. I am focusing on the issues about fearing retaliation and the power dynamic at play when facing misconduct from popular/influential members of staff to highlight the reasons that many issues can be kept buried with our current inconsistent system. I myself, despite being the head of a department, at many points let misconduct go without formal comment because I was worried about retaliation from the person or their friends. To add, I'm known as being very loud and open about my feelings and beliefs. If my concerns are being silenced, then it's very easy for me to emphasize with regular players who lack the power I had. This isn't even accounting for my personal conversations with players who were in this exact same situation.
  12. We can already DM staff members with logs about misconduct and it can be acted on. I have personally given every Head at least one DM bringing up problematic behavior. This is not an effective system. There are no logs. The best equivilant to what we have now is every single note being on a personal notepad of each individual staff member leaving a note on a player. How can you say this would at all be transparent or effective for management? Formalizing a report system creates MORE accountability and fairness, not less. This is also not about hostility to staff. I'm not hostile to staff. Do you think you can see how me speaking up wanting a more accountable and consistent system to tackle the problems of staff misconduct is seen as hostility towards staff shows an inherent flaw in expecting everyone to publically speak out about issues they see? Im not asking for the complaints board to be made private. If reports lead to Heads deciding an issue should be a player complaint instead then thats a possible outcome. How do you know for sure there's no one that is facing problematic behavior as a victim or witness but is being kept quiet because they dont want to be seen as "hostile to staff"?
  13. Currently if a dev is doing misconduct I can report them by DMing skull or arrow. That complaint is then kept in their discord DM history unless they choose to share it. Complaints being visible to all four heads in an official capacity is a lot less arbitrary and is MORE transparent than we have now.
×
×
  • Create New...