evandorf

If we are to deal with documented and logged events, I would like to bring up three recent posts that directly involve Burger. In chronological order they are: A player complaint against Burger's Roboticist character, in which Burger readily admits to metagaming. As the Roboticist, he built a durand and two gygaxes during a rev round in anticipation for being recruited by either the REVs or LOYs. He installed beacons in the mechs and a roboticist console in his lab so that he could monitor who was using them and shut them down if necessary. He also states that his intention was to release these mechs and specific times as the pace of the round dictated. He states he was upset that the REVs/LOYs mainly RP'ed with sec and did not involve him. A staff complaint made by Burger regarding a decision I made yesterday. It revolves around the fact that during a rev round Burger began making a Gygax, similar to the REV round from the first post, but was subsequently removed from Research on the RD's orders due to the fact that Burger had earlier given security a half finished Ripley as a joke. The Director then completed the Gygax and handed it to security. When Burger ahelped he stated that what the Director was doing was a clear case of powergaming/metagaming. As evidenced by the existence of the Staff complaint, he was not satisfied. A suggestion thread in which Burger advocates for the reduced capabilities of robotics constructed mechs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion, taken as a whole, it shows that Burger thinks of himself as a sort of arbiter of RP. When he creates mechs in robotics he deems it necessary to have a means to control who is using it based on his metaknowledge of the round. He does not trust security or it's players to do so or command. When others, specifically the RD, distribute mechs in similar fashion he calls it powergaming and metagaming. When it is deemed valid he creates a suggestion thread to nerf what he sees as the problem. This is one of the main reasons, I believe, people have issues with Burger. These three posts are fairly clear but in instances where the round is boring or "the antags were bad" I regularly see Burger in OOC sharing this opinion in harsh, condescending, and often insulting ways. When people respond or retaliate with similar language or tone Burger seems legitimately confused as to where the anger and hate is coming from and reports them to staff. It is also possible that he deliberately uses the anger of others to discredit them when they eventually boil over but I can't speak to how likely this is, only that it is a possibility. I genuinely feel like this is more a failure of Burger's to comprehend the full situation and opinions of others and to change his own behavior but it doesn't excuse his actions or how he treats others.

Here are the full logs of the ahelp.

Alright, this back and forth is not providing anything new to the discussion. Please refrain from posting further unless it's to give new information. I've read through the thread and will be speaking with @Juani2400 soon.

Go in from the roof or go home.

Put legit breachers as a possibility in the stack of RIGs on the right and you can do what you like.

I'm still iffy on it. I think grenades should be more accessible and not available only to people who understand chemistry. It makes sense to be able to have military hardware, like frag grenades, delivered to infiltrators.

What about non-traitor antags like mercs. Shouldn't they have access to frag grenades and manhacks?

How will making people go through the added hassle of creating their own grenades prevent EoR grief from said grenades?

Can you make something equivalent to frag grenades with them?

All you need is metal an igniter and timer, all of which can be gotten at primary tools storage. Why should we have to spend TC on close to useless items when the main issue seems to be rulebreaking from antags?

How is that any different from simply breaking into science and chemistry yourself and making grenades the normal way?

These chemical grenades, will they do damage like a frag grenade? Because I use frag grenades on the regular for things other than EoR grief.

In your example, the person who was not involved and was killed by the crossfire would not be considered gank. If security escalates without first clearing civilians then security would not be doing their job properly. To go back to my previous post in this thread I understand that you think it happens a lot but, without specific examples or more people giving their feedback, simply stating this as fact undermines the ability of the thread to remain factual. EDITED for clarification.

I'd argue that shifting from the AMR to a more close range, high damaging weapon is taking a step backwards towards the .357. I also think that we need to clarify the definition of gank. In a firefight where rounds have been exchanged, or even a standoff where both sides are geard up you already have escalation. You're simply waiting for the spark to ignite. Gank is attacking someone who has no indication that anything dangerous or harmful is about to happen where no RP has been given beforehand.

I can agree with this stance in principle but I rarely see AMRs come into use. Maybe that's just my perspective and all the snipers come on in my off hours. The argument for removal seems to hinge on how common AMR ganking is. I think it would be useful if people responding to the suggestion could recount their own experiences. Burger obviously feels like it ruins many rounds but if the majority of players experience no outstanding issues then I would say its prohibitive cost and low ammunition are enough to keep it in check yet allow for people who want to use it for their gimmick.

What would you define as using an AMR maliciously? As long as sufficient RP and escalation is given it's use to kill someone is as valid as any other weapon.

I've used it in RP situations. Specifically Tokash, when he was an officer and traitorable used it to interrupt a hostage situation with @Rosetango. Plenty of leadup and headway was given so as not to be gank but it was a situation where my traitor security officer thought taking a shot at a hostage taker was better than bargaining. IMO, the main reason to not simply nerf weapons on all sides is because heavy weapons are supposed to be deterrents to people playing the hero and to give clear and present indicators that fear RP should come into play in a particular situation. If the sniper rifle can't backup the threat it presents then people will not take it seriously.

I have to agree with Kaed on this. Similarly to the TTV, the AMR has legitimate RP uses but is also very powerful. If it's being used inappropriately then the player should be reported but the simple fact that it allowed mercs to win a firefight isn't enough reason to alter or remove it.

I have to agree. I rarely see the gun bought let alone used effectively enough to be considered OP to the point of removal. -1

IMO, from a story and RP perspective, a mouse entering the kitchen nibbling on some food and getting killed by the chef is just as valid as the mouse entering the kitchen nibbling on some food and befriending the chef. They both tell a story. In a very tenuous and obscure way it's a scaled down version of peacetag vs antag; both are valid ways of playing and whichever you choose you should try not to get upset if you're the one that ends up dead.

You were aware of the rules that were broken and, given your apology and the amount of time that has passed, I am willing to lift the ban. The antag ban, however, was not applied by me and will remain in place until some more time has passed without any further escalation incidents. Then you can create another appeal so that @HouseOfSynth can review it.

I think this is understandable and I'll go ahead and lift the ban. In the future, if you hear the below sound and see red text in the chat it's a member of staff trying to reach you. adminhelp.ogg

@Juani2400 and I will be handling this one. Give us some time to look over all the information.

Alright, I think we can lift the ban but please change your character's name before you join again and read over the server rules if you haven't yet. https://aurorastation.org/rules.html

The main reason for the ban was not the naming problem but a lack of response from you when messaged. I messaged you almost immediately when you entered the round from cryo and sent you several followup messages. I didn't see you fall down or go SSD but received no response at all. Can you explain in more detail what happened? You're saying you had logged off immediately after joining and came back to a ban?