evandorf

Reporting Personnel: Suvek Tokash Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Head of Security Game ID: bZo-asPl Personnel Involved: - Juan Siganto: Offender - Suvek Tokash: Offended Time of Incident: 01:40 Real Time: Approx 11:15 PM Central US Location of Incident: Head of Security Office Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ X ] - Destruction of Property [ ] - Neglect of Duty [ ] - Harassment [ ] - Assault [ X ] - Misconduct [ ] - Other _____ (Place an x in the box that applies. If other, replace line and specify.) Overview of the Incident: The shift began without Captain Siganto. Later after I had become injured due to the presence of a raiding party I returned to my office after leaving surgery. The Captain followed me inside and proceeded to wordlessly move to the wall and tear my flag of the Hegemony from it. Nothing was said. He did not state his displeasure that it was placed, did not ask it to be removed, simply destroyed it. I informed him that this would be reported. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: It was not reported at the time due to a lack of an agent aboard and my dealing with higher priority issues involving the intruders. Actions taken: NA Additional Notes: This is unreasonable conduct becoming a Captain to destroy crew property without so much as a word, especially when the one involved is one of his heads of staff.

I think a likely outcome will be isolated departmental guards clamping down harder and faster than nornal due to their vulnerability.

@Zelmana I want to preface this by acknowledging that this will likely come across as condescending, but I hope that you take it with the intent it's given; to help come to a better understanding of each other. First, I think you can be very abrasive at times and that similar conduct which toes the line of acceptable on the forums and discord is what causes many of the issues we see. This is why we're saying that users need to act civilly. As Skull said, word policing isn't really a viable option but if the majority of people around you are saying that you're being a dick it might be time for some introspection and self-reflection.

Once turned though you have to deal with the hunger and possibly going into a frenzy. And requiring vamps to first drain their victim would help alleviate the blood cost.

As far as turning someone into a vamp, you could require them to first be drained before you give them vamp blood. Bring them to crit. This would allow people to succumb and simply not survive the process. Which, depending on your vamp lore, would make sense.

There's a difference between opting not to interact and throwing a tantrum. If I'm not feeling cult I'll usually just let them kill me. Sometimes I may let them know in looc that I don't want to be converted. There are also a lot of people who like to play simply to do their job or RP, research comes to mind. And I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for those players the ability to do what they enjoy. I'm completely OK with death being the alternative to conversion but we don't need to punish people who opt out.

I don't think everyone should be expected to interact with conversion antags, especially on secret where extended is an option.

Most of this discussion seems to assume we're dealing with lone antags. Antag teams would quickly roll an uncoordinated security (merc, raider, cult, rev). I would argue that sec doesn't need to be diluted but that antags need to cooperate more in order to counter them, but aside from some comments in aooc I hardly see traitors get encrypted keys, work with others, or try to communicate icly at all. You've said that sec isn't about winning and I would return by saying that neither is antag. If your gimmick doesn't come to fruition like you wanted then as long as you engaged with crew you still furthered a story even if it didn't go the way you wanted. I'm very wary about making changes to the station's entire personnel structure in unreasonable ways when there are other less intrusive options. By unreasonable I mean, for example, a lack of dedicated comms channel or the idea a departmental security guard would be expected to either arm or enlist civilians to deal with possible deadly threats.

I really do appreciate the offer and I don't want to seem ungrateful but I don't think a necklace would fit the character and I think there'd also be problems with security uniform regulations.

I've had a thought after my initial response and thought I'd see what you think of it. A full spear and a shark trophy together might seem a little too much and I know that you made an exception for the spear in regards to the weapon rule. Instead of a full spear on the wall, how about something smaller that wouldn't require a weapon exception? My initial thought was just the spearhead, suspended in a small stand which would sit on the desk. This way I would still have a piece of the spear and my family heirloom while also mixing it a bit with technology. It would better mirror Tokash's traditionalist personality mixed with the implant and working in a human-centric station. It would also be easier to steal, if antags looked at my exploitable info. The shark trophy would then, in my opinion, be less egregious. My primary concern would be undoing Alb's work on spriting the original spear and I would be willing to find or commission someone to get the new sprites myself, rather than add to the staff's workload.

I apologize if I misunderstood your approval of the spear. When it was accepted you had said it was because you encouraged personalizing of heads' offices so I thought another item wouldn't be too much and I may have been wrong in that assumption. That being said I can promise that I will make no requests for additional office items. Both the spear and trophy are related to Tokash's personal history. Back when Marwani used to be a regular presence on the station and he was just an officer his tendency to hunt carp and shark whenever he could put a definite strain on their relationship. If these seem to be just token Unathi items it's because Tokash is sort of a stereotype himself.

BYOND Key: Evandorf Character name: Suvek Tokash Item name: Shark Jaw Trophy Why is your character carrying said item to work? This would be an item what stays in my office on the wall. Item function(s): Purely decorative. It would work just like a flag or sign. Item description: Flavor text would read, "A large and impressive pair of jaws from what must have been a large and impressive shark." Item appearance: It would be a cleaned and mounted skeletal jaw. It would sit on the wall. I'll pull up a picture for reference. How will you use this to better interact with crew and/or stimulate RP? Much like the spear custom item this would re-enforce Tokash's more unathi aspects that I feel he sometimes loses adhering to being HoS and Implanted. Back to a time when he could run outside during a migration and hunt with a spear and not worry about being a respectable member of command. Additional comments: I'm not sure how difficult it would be, but some flags you can deploy straight to the wall like a poster without needing a screwdriver. Can the same be done for items like this? If not I can get a screwdriver relatively easily.

For simplicity's sake, at least until someone wants to make a specialized tool for the TCFL, we could always just give their engineers a couple of door hacking tools from the uplink. They take time to hack, approximately what I imagine a power spreader would take, and store a handful of hacked doors in memory. Five, if I remember right.

How about a tool like the jaws of life or a power spreader? As an emergency response team it's reasonable that they would have to get into places they may not have access to in a timely manner. A powered or ratcheting spreader to force unbolted doors open but not render them unusable after. It could then be removed and used on another door. It would be slower than simply giving then access to an area but still allow them to do what they're supposed to do ICly.

I really like the damaged speech patterns that affect stationbounds when they're damaged. Can we do the same thing to IPCs?

Maybe even make a temp cargo bounty for grapes and such due to the demand for raisins and food in general. Synth meat?

NT may already be locked in for a set amount of time on a contract. They would try to defer the cost by raising prices themselves.

There is an icon in the top right that shows whether or not the space above you is clear for movement and is very useful when outside moving around with jumpjets. It either shows an open space or a closed space. Maybe we could add a third option and have it show if a person is above you? I also think that having the high ground is a natural advantage.

The point of this suggestion, as I understand it, is to create guidelines for dealing with hostage situations as well as a general acceptable limit for what can be paid to ransomers. The reason you gave for this being necessary is that it would drive story and conflict. It has been my assertion throughout this thread that what drives story and conflict is not static guidelines but the actions of capable players. I have also maintained that even if NT were to decide a numerical value for the lives of its crew it would likely not post that information anywhere the public or regular crew would have access to it (directives, regulations, CCIAA messages). These hypothetical situations have bearing on the suggestion simply as tools of demonstrating my perspective. Hostages work very well for a reason. Most people realistically will have sympathy for hostages and will alter their actions. Even if NT is an "evil" company, a company is the collection of people and bureaucracy. Often if you can get face to face with individual people inside the company they can be swayed to help you out if needed. What I've been saying regarding high level hostage targets vs. low level civilians and the amount of RP/conflict each provides comes from my experience as merc/raider. As Blackscale I have experienced my fair share of hostage situations and from my experience if you want a loud, messy, and interesting hostage you go for a civilian. If you want a more dangerous, valuable, but with an overall smaller RP footprint you go for the Captain or Head of Staff. Finally, what you consider to be laissez-faire I consider to be the appropriate amount of oversight. We already require members to be whitelisted to be in command roles. As I said earlier, if you believe a command member is acting extremely unreasonable then either ahelp or make a complaint.

This is precisely my point. In your earlier posts you suggested that guidelines were needed to ensure that command didn't simply capitulate with ransom demands out of consideration of furthering conflict and creating story. You stated that, because of the amount of overall crew involvement, situation B was preferable. We've talked around the issue for a bit now and I believe that it's up to the players themselves how much they want to involve the crew at large. This falls on command, the hostage, and the hostage takers and we have to be able to trust those players to create RP graciously and considerately for the round to be engaging as many people as possible. We also have to trust our whitelisted command members and our more experienced antags to set the bar on what is acceptable for ransom demands. There are obviously unacceptable extremes, which I don't believe require guidelines to identify, but everything else in between will be dependent upon the circumstances and the players involved.

But then if you kidnap the Captain or head, the focus of communication moves to command and security channels and we find ourselves in a situation exclusionary to most of the crew. Harper shouting over common occurs because it's one of the only channels she has and because a head of staff or Captain would be more likely not want to rile or worry the crew and keep communication to the point and professional.

I think it would help if we could clarify what kind of guidelines these were. Specifically, if they are meant to be available as IC informtaion where would they be posted? Having NT make a directive or CCIAA announcement stating employees are only worth 1.5x their bank account wouldn't be realistic. It would be public information and would cause a tremendous backlash from the employees and general public. OOCly you could put guidelines for appropriate ransom levels in the traitor or antag wiki pages. The exploitable info and contracts on the uplink could also be an IC option. I don't particularly agree that 1.5x your bank account is the right way to go but knowing how the proposed guidelines would be published would iron out some concerns.

Can you clarify? What would these guidelines cover and how would they be implemented? If these guidelines were to aid new or even seasoned antagonists then they likely wouldn't be ICly something put out by NT, correct? OK. I think I understand a little clearer what you mean. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that we need to set guidelines for what is and is not acceptable in these situations. For example, emptying station accounts and the vault to get one hostage back is not acceptable. If an antagonist demands excessive amounts of money for a hostage then there is little chance that the station will comply, rendering the hostage moot. On the other hand if the station/command does comply then they are not acting in a reasonable manner. The main problem with this is it's very difficult to have guidelines that account for all circumstances unless they are blanket statements like "We do not negotiate with terrorists" and a blanket statement like that would quash hostage/ransom situations altogether. To bring up @Kaed's earlier point about self driving cars, the judgements they make are value based and they will prioritize certain people over others but there are endless possible circumstances in which an accident can occur. Many of those systems will actually utilize machine learning algorithms to decide who to save and who not to save. I mention this because such an algorithm is dynamic and actively changes based on the situation. Static guidelines or directives are simply inadequate. This is why, IMO, it's preferable to let the players dictate what is and is not acceptable. Within reason, of course. There is a limit to how far the "life is priceless" mentality can be taken and if a command member is acting extremely unreasonable when dealing with terrorists then the issue should be reported.

Realistically, the company would have a laundry list of policies on many different topics and NT would have some policy regarding hostages and ransoms. Whether that policy would match what you want we could debate for a while but in practice, on the server, we can't make directives and policies for all possible emergencies. We rely on the capabilities and judgement of our whitelisted members. If you have an issue with how someone is acting in a command role I'd encourage you to make a player/character complaint. That being said, this is all just my opinion and I definitely don't speak for the rest of the staff. I can't say whether this suggestion will be accepted or not but if it is, and a directive or policy is created, then it would not be actionable in-game. Much like directive four if someone was acting against policy then it would be an IC issue, especially considering that almost 100% of hostage situations will involve antagonists.

The issue I have is that this treads closer to policing RP. I'm not a fan of classifying this RP as good and this RP as bad because it's very subjective. Again, the main considerations for player actions are how believable and reasonable they are. The difference between the two scenarios you give is essentially that situation B has much more radio chatter because it took them longer to get the money to the raiders, but in the end they still gave in to the ransom. RP and conflict should come from the players themselves. I commend you for you involvement in the round as RD because you were the one that was the dissenting opinion which caused conflict but it's not something we should try to recreate through policies.