evandorf

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.

I appreciate you wanting to improve the game. Don't be disheartened but it might be healthy to set your expectations somewhat. You're dealing with a diverse group of people who all play the game differently from one another. Try to keep an objective perspective on your suggestion and understand that while it may seem obviously good to you there are inevitably those who will see it as bad simply due to their own perspective on what the game should be. Neither side is inherently right and the outcome should be shaped by input from all sides. You're also dealing with a decently longstanding community with well entrenched positions. Change to core elements will always be slow but if you truely think they should be changed then I'd encourage you to keep trying.

I have to -1 this suggestion because I disagree with this premise. I think it's a wide generalization to make that all people vote this way. From my perspective, when I vote secret, I am simply voting for the potential of any round type. Extended is just as valid as merc, vamp, cult, ect. and I don't think it should be relegated to only being available when it's specifically voted for.

I agree. Though extreme, I would even enjoy a mining setup where the smelters were input from only the outside and miners rarely came back in with the majority of hauling and counting done by cargo.

I'll make an addendum to my post and say that conflict between mining and science isn't necessarily a bad thing. At the end of the day the game exists for RP and story, not for departmental efficiency. If issues spill into OOC channels however then I'd suggest reporting it to staff.

While I can appreciate the goal of the suggestion, I can't say I support it for three reasons. 1. Implementation. Aside from security regulations and ccia directives there isn't really a place for this and I don't see it fitting into either of these two categories either. In fact, issues you describe can already be filed under our existing neglect of duty regulation, it simply requires the appropriate head to file charges. This brings up... 2. Administration. Many of the issues you bring up can be resolved by a competent RD or HoP. If you feel like this is becoming an issue and you don't already have a head whitelist I'd recommend getting one and tackling the issue from a position of authority. 3. Player expectations. This is my primary concern. I am very wary about placing timed constraints on people's gameplay and defining someone's duty for them. Even if there were policies on how quickly mining was to deliver the first load of materials it would likely always need to be handled icly by heads of staff, and if the current issue is not being resolved by the heads I don't see that putting more restrictive IC policies into the universe will solve that.

Directive 11 is basically keeping crew informed right? Having a drone with camera access which could be viewed at newscasters would help a lot, IMO.

As I stated in the ahelp, the paramedic injected sopor in a situation where the officer was having issues dealing with a suspect and then brought a laser rifle to bear on a drunk, unarmed man. This was not a situation of medical power gaming meds to bypass the need for sec at all. And in regards to fear RP, if anyone has a footing to stand on for risking their life to save a patient it would be a paramedic.