evandorf

I don’t necessarily have issues with “wacky” game modes but I would agree the wizard was a step too far regarding immersion. The techno can flavor themselves in a lot of different ways by changing the appearance of their clothes and the armor they have is pretty decent. I’ve had good success using more benign spells recently and being less threatening. Changing your core’s appearance too is pretty useful but in a universe with blue space errors and teleportation there’s no reason why you can’t flavor the weird as accessing another dimension or science gone wrong.

Server Moderator Application Basic Information Byond Account: Evandorf Character Name(s): Suvek Tokash, Head of Security Nia, Engineer Lesar Isk, Security Officer Azshran Ixuun, Shaman AI Name(s): NA Discord username + tag: Evandorf#1890 Age: 39 Timezone: US CST When are you on Aurora?: After work between 5:00 PM - 12:00 AM on weekdays and periodically throughout the day on the weekend. Experience How long have you played SS13?: Approximately eight years. How long have you played on Aurora: Approximately seven years. How much do you know about SS13 (Baystation build) game mechanics?: Very familiar with most game mechanics. Weakest areas would be medical but I can find information if needed or at worst dig through git to get close. Do you have any experience moderating for an SS13 server?: I moderated on Aurora for about 9 months back in 2019 but stepped down due to not having time to devote to moderating or the game itself due to personal issues. Have you read through the criteria thread; https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4198 - and believe that you mark off all the criteria?: Yes, although I still think I have room to grow and learn. Have you ever been banned, and if so, how long and why?: No. Personality Why do you play SS13?: Originally I started playing SS13 for the simulator aspect of the game. I loved the complexity and the verisimilitude, especially with well maintained servers. More recently I've come to appreciate the roleplay aspect more. I've gotten a bit more chill and just enjoy engaging with other people and learning about their characters. Why do you play on Aurora?: The atmosphere and vibe has always been welcoming to me. There are several other well maintained servers I could play on but Aurora has a dedication to keeping the world alive and an interesting place to work and the players I engage with are usually amicable, responsive, and willing to engage. What do moderators do?: They respond to player concerns and complaints. They make sure that the rules are observed and mediate if necessary. They help new players acclimate to the server and ensure it's a safe space for people to enjoy. What does it mean to be a moderator for our server?: Moderating on this server includes all of the above answer, but also being able to foster the good nature of the community itself. Staying up to date on lore, keeping a positive and courteous attitude, and basically just trying to help make the server the kind of place you want to hang out. Why do you want to be a moderator?: I've recently come back to playing on the server from a hiatus and saw that moderators were needed. I'd like to help out in anyway I can, even if it's just being present for a few hours during the slower parts of the night. What qualities do you possess that would make you a good moderator?: My better qualities are patience and persistence. I want to do the right thing and make the right decision, even if that takes time to sort through the noise and find the problems at the heart of an issue. How well do you handle stress, anger, or insults?: I believe I handle them very well. I have probably just as much stress as anyone else but I've learned to identify it and make sure to address it. I try to handle anger and insults without ego, attempting to view people's actions in the best possible light but also setting boundaries that ensure I'm doing the best thing for myself and other players. Anything Else You Want to Add: While completing this application it's caused me to reflect on the years I've spent on this server and the changes I've seen it go through. I believe it's an excellent community and really provides a unique experience and I want to help it continue to do so.

I’ve played with Schev in the past, mostly with their HoS, and they are a competent Head. +1

It would be nice to be able to take long range pictures for a number of applications. My initial thought is a mechanic like the binoculars where you bring them up and the screen shifts wherethen you can take a picture as normal by clicking a section of the screen. Normal telephoto lenses are rather large so you could make it pretty obvious to anyone near you what you were up to and it could make it cumbersome to carry to level things out.

Thanks for the information and I hope you're getting over your sickness and that it's not anything serious; especially with what's been going on recently. This is also not a dispute so feel free to lock this when you think it's appropriate. I guess I just wanted to put a few more things on record. First, I understand your position on the killing and I feel like it's a stance that's resulted from a shift in the staff/community zeitgeist. This is not to say I think it's a planned or calculated change; I don't want you to think I believe there's any sinister admins or mods conspiring to force people out or change the game for their own reasons. The focus of the server has likely shifted slowly as legacy code/items are removed and lore is refined. I just wanted to express my opinion because it's been something I've been withholding for a while and this warning just happens to clearly highlight the issues I have. I may be completely wrong in my opinion but it's simply my subjective experience. The server seems to have shifted from a realism focus to one of balance/fairness. You can substitute verisimilitude for realism if someone wants to make the argument that I shouldn't expect realism in a 2D spaceman game. My point is that I find myself and my expectation on how the game should be played moving further and further from this overall stance that the staff/community seems to be adopting. This may be no one's problem but my own and I will likely need to alter my behavior/expectations but please allow me to vent a little. I think my attitude can be condensed into the idea that being removed from the round isn't the worst thing possible. This is not to say that I think anyone who gets killed should have to suck it up and move on but many people treat death as a terrible tragedy that should be avoided at all costs and if they have to die because of story reasons then it should be a suitably poignant or meaningful death. This leads to some absurd interactions between antags and crew where you are basically trying to get consent to kill them, or at least implied consent due to them ignoring your obvious warnings and threats of death. The idea that someone unfortunately was killed with very little warning because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time when there were armed enemies fighting to achieve their goals is considered heinous simply because it took that player out of the round. People don't seem to consider that not everyone can be a significant character and that being a casualty, or "red shirt" for lack of a better term still adds to the story as a whole. In the spectrum of antagonist interactions you have one extreme in these absurdly unrealistic interactions that would seem cliche even in the blandest, most banal superhero movies and at the other extreme you have wordless antags "murderboning" across the station. Neither example is fun. The trick is to find an interesting story to tell which strikes the perfect balance, which in my opinion is not directly in the center. I just wish more consideration was given to the situation as a whole across the station and less to an individual player's perceived right to remain in the round. All that being said, I completely understand your position and if that is how such situations are viewed by staff then I will need to make sure I abide by the rules as you have described them. Thanks for listening to me rant a little bit. Getting clear answers over discord is difficult and I doubt I would do much better posting these concerns in a more general thread without a relevant incident or staff involvement. Again, thanks for your time.

Let me set a timeline along with the circumstances leading to the bombing. I think it's pertinent to determining if my actions were justified. First, I should restate that security had moved to a shoot on-sight stance and every officer I had seen thus far had fired at us. Leading up to setting the trap with the welderbomb I intercepted the following over comms: After this I moved to the checkpoint with the fuel tank, placed it right inside the bottom door, and closed the shutters so it couldn't be seen from the outside. Then I positioned myself in the top door of the checkpoint so I could get a clear shot at it and back out quickly. With this placement I could not see the area below the checkpoint because the shutters were down and the screen ended maybe 5 - 10 feet past my vision. Even with the thermals the suit had built in I could only really see the first person to come up to the door. After waiting a while, Rhetoric, the AI, informed security I was in the checkpoint. Logs below. My logs don't have timestamps but the time between Rhetoric stating I was there and the time of the shot was not insubstantial. I assumed that Rhetoric's message prompted security to enter the checkpoint and as they had already shown multiple times that they were out for blood I was ready to spring my trap when the door was opened. This is a long way of saying that I had a reasonable assumption that security as a whole was active and ready to shoot me on-sight and that they were moving as a group to get Lynn to the departure shuttle. I think it's unreasonable in this situation to be required to stop and verify the activity/intent of the security crew you encounter. I appreciate you taking your time to look over this. I want to make sure that I describe/relay my confusion of the enforcement of the gank rules, or perhaps my misunderstanding of them, so that I can avoid making the same mistakes in the future. My understanding of the rules before this round was that a murder scene itself could be wordless if enough roleplay had occurred beforehand in the round. I may not have spoken to Danny Wiles at length throughout the round but I was engaged with the crew at large over comms and several other members of security at different times. If Danny Wiles was not an acceptable target for this trap, then I have to assume that the roleplay I provided to the crew at large doesn't apply to the gank rule. I have to assume that even though I was very verbal about my goals and methods, and even though security knew I was aware of their movements, and even though Rhetoric announced my presence, Danny Wiles was not sufficiently aware or involved in my actions to be considered a valid target.

The main issue I have and the reason why I created this complaint is that the gank rules as written don't seem to be reflected in how they were enforced. I'd like to post some specifics and get an official answer if possible. I'll put logs as spoilers to keep things clean. This is the first interaction I had with our target, Holiday Lynn, and the screen cap goes from first contact to the first message Shadow set me. It was a pretty rapid response by Shadow and one that came while I was still trying to incapacitate Lynn in the maintenance tunnel. At this point all I had done was surprise her and use varying degrees of grabs but I was messaged for a gank violation. The speed of the response and the fact that I hadn't used any lethal attacks or done anything truly damaging to her at the time the ticket was opened leads me to assume that the main issue in Shadow's opinion is that she had been surprised. The issue with the officer and the welderbomb was a significant escalation but only after I had interacted with the crew, had them reciprocate and escalate themselves by moving to a shoot on sight stance, and provided RP as I showed at the start of this thread. The common element between the two instances seems to be that I surprised both my targets. Gank rules as written focus mainly on the need for appropriate roleplay before killing someone. I don't see how using traps and ambush tactics violates those rules especially when I am interacting with the crew at large, escalating appropriately, and pushing a story. Again, I'd like to have a definitive answer on the matter because its seems contradictory and I definitely want to avoid racking up warnings and notes if I'm misunderstanding it somehow.

BYOND Key: Evandorf Staff BYOND Key: ParadoxSpace Game ID: b5y-aQe4 Reason for the Complaint: This is regarding a gank warning I was given. I was working with another ninja during a Visitors round. We had worked out over AOOC with the Wizard that we would choose a target and they would work to heal/protect them. Before this official warning I was spoken with once before by Shadow7889 regarding our first interaction with our target, Holiday Lynn. While stealthed I moved up to her near cargo and told her that our customers sent their regards (the customer was a family of a Unathi Consular she had previously insulted). I then grabbed her and teleported to maintenance where I tried to restrain her. She called for help, the wizard, their apprentice and security came, and then before I had to teleport away I cut at Holiday's legs. The intention was to wound her so that the wizard could play their role and we could move on to full aggression. I spoke with Shadow about this and was told that because the gimmick had taken an extended amount of time to setup (approximately 1 hr) that this was gank behavior and that only a verbal warning was needed. This was simply the lead up to the talk I had with Paradox at round end. After the initial attack, Holiday was stabilized and taken to robotics to replace her leg which had been severed. Security was armed and mobile, robotics had built a mech, and the wizard and apprentice were keeping watch as well. I thought it best to try to thin out the protectors a bit and scare them as well so first, while stealthed, I dragged a welderfuel tank up to the door of the robotics surgery room where Holiday was being kept. A roomful of people saw the tank moving on its own and figured out what was going on. They dragged the welder tank away, down the hall. I did this a second time with another welder tank from robotics with the same result. I didn't intend to detonate these, it was mostly for show. Then I went to EVA and pulled its welder fueltank to the outside wall of robotics and detonated it using the Captain's pistol. The walls held, Holiday was moved and the hunt continued. The rest of the round was mostly playing cat and mouse with security, popping up in front of civilian crew and threatening them, demanding Holiday's whereabouts, antagonizing crew and security over the radio; basic ninja stuff. Towards the end of the shift I heard over sec radio that they were moving Holiday to the red dock. I thought this would be a good time to get the jump on them. I moved while stealthed to the checkpoint, which security had not yet reached, lowered all the shutters and placed another welderbomb behind the door so that when they came I might thin them out some as they had moved to shooting on sight. It was quickly done, eventually security came and when the officer popped the door I shot the fuel tank and the round continued. I will post the full logs below but the warning I was given is as follows: I explained to Paradox that I felt I had given the crew and especially security very fair warning that they were not only being targeted but the way in which I was targeting them. I definitely feel that I was not "wordlessly" doing anything and while the interaction given may not have been face to face it was sufficient and extended throughout the last half of the shift. Evidence/logs/etc: Additional remarks: The screenshots of chat were just examples I pulled to show that I was interacting with the crew as best I could while also being actively hunted by security. I will attach the full logs to this post. log 2020-03-02 (1 01 am).htm

Would this be an every saturday thing? I'd be interested but I'm on call once every three weeks, I don't know if I could do /every/ saturday.

Locking and Archiving.

Apologies again for the delays but I've spoken with @Juani2400 on this and we both agree that some things Garn said were over the line and inappropriate. I've spoken with other Headmins regarding appropriate repercussions and so long as Garn acknowledges the misconduct and makes a good faith effort to curb the behavior going forward we will be logging the issue for future reference. It will be taken into consideration for any further incidents. After speaking with Garn on Discord and seeing his subsequent comment we'll move forward with this action plan. We'll leave this thread open for another 48 hours to allow for any further questions or concerns.

That's fine. As long as there's some consensus on what's acceptable. Ideally any abuse should be handled ICly, but it's good to layout what the limits are beforehand.

The Captain is still bound by regulations. On code green weapons have to be concealed. While the Captain could go and grab any weapon he wants, if he did so without reason he we get spoken to for power gaming.

No, but we still put an incredible amount of time and energy into building the IC universe and changes we make to it should make sense within its lore and adhere to currently existing policies, both IC and OOC.

To clarify, I have two issues. 1. Giving the Captain a weapon that is intended to be worn is simply an increase in his lethality and combat effectiveness regardless of whether or not it is carried in a sheath. As it currently stands the Captain can carry an epistol and baton at round start. Breaking out the antique without reason would be considered power gaming. If the sword is intended to be carried from the start then the Captain can still carry the epistol and baton with it, it just removes the need requirement that the antique currently has. 2. Forgive me for being pedantic, but at least where I live a sheathed sword would not count as a concealed weapon. Even holstered firearms do not count as concealed if the entirety of the holster is visible. The key is whether or not you can easily distinguish or discern what the weapon is. Ingame, when you look at a security officer you can see very little of the weapon sprite when holstered, if at all, and inspecting only shows that it is “an occupied holster”. A sword in its scabbard worn externally is clearly visible and can easily be distinguished. It would be inappropriate on code green, on a research station, as part of a non military company.

That’s my issue, by going from the antique to a sword you are moving from a prop to an actual weapon intended to be carried. I personally do not want any exceptions. We should either remove them all or this should instead be a policy change.

The HoS does not have a helmet. He has an armored hat. The issue is not IC or regulation based, as the item visually makes sense and adheres to regulations, but potentially mechanics based. If there is an issue with the HOS having a helmet that is not actually a helmet then the item or armor values should be removed. The pistol only has five shots and not all of them will hit. To be clear, my issue is not with the idea itself but the fact that it breaks our existing regulations and rules. The antique gun stayed in its case for the most part unless there was an emergency or an antagonist took it. If a Captain starts their round breaking open the case to carry the antique around then they’re getting a talking to. What you seem to be suggesting is replacing the antique with a lethal item that is approved to carry from the start of the round.

https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Security_Officer#Alert_Levels “You can wear the standard vest available in your security locker, but not the armor found in the armory.”

The armor is not an exception though. Vests are allowed and encouraged for all sec officers on green. Helmets are allowed on blue and above. The difference between the scabbard and the holster is that the holster only fits the epistol, from the captain’s current equipment. It has very little lethal potential. The sword has arguably more mileage as a lethal weapon.

The Captain is still bound to regulations. I still have an issue with basically giving him the ability to openly carry a weapon at all times. While the background of the Captain could account for them having a weapon they would not be allowed to bring it to work like this. It’s the same reason weapons aren’t allowed in custom item apps. I would check with @TishinaStalker but I’m fairly certain even Captain characters would have personal weapons denied.

I don’t think the Sabre fits well with the station. It seems like a bit of dated military tradition but NT isn’t military. Also, this would be kind of a dick move to allow the Captain special permission to wear a weapon openly on green. AFAIK other swords, even if the sprite shows a scabbard like the katana, are still considered weapons by sec if worn.

I have to agree with Carver. Most of the time you will likely have merc teams use their own TC to gear themselves rather than pool their TC for one crimson hardsuit. The result would be its use would drop from 75-100 percent of merc rounds to maybe 30% (approximately the same percentages you see a syndie borg get dropped). It would be considered a nerf because the overall effectiveness of the merc team would be statistically reduced across all merc rounds. I think it would be too much to give every merc a crimson hardsuit but maybe if you're concerned with people rushing the existing one you could add it to the uplink so a second could be purchased.

Sorry about the delay on this. I had a small medical/health issue that’s been cleared up. I will be getting with Juani soon on a final decision.

To be fair, if you want to have the patch instead of the glasses it's a sacrifice you'll have to make. Realistically it doesn't make sense for it to provide flash protection. On the other hand, now that flashes won't stun you and just blind it's not as bad as it used to be.

I've started playing medical a bit and thought it would be nice if the Crew Monitoring Console functioned a bit like the Alarm monitors for engineering. Whenever someone on sensors has enough damage to be considered yellow through critical health the sprite would change to alert nearby crew. It would not give specifics but perhaps just the human outline would flash red to indicate there is someone that requires attention. This way medical personnel could do other things, or converse without having to monitor the console constantly.