evandorf

Reporting Personnel: Suvek Tokash Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Head of Security Game ID: bXZ-c3wm Personnel Involved: - Zioyana Yeranokara, Security Officer: Offender - Suvek Tokash, Head of Security: Offender's Supervisor - Samuel Sandford, Detective: Witness - Gregory Mueller, Forensic Investigator: Witness Time of Incident: Approximately 18:00 Real Time: 1700 Central Standard Time Location of Incident: Chaplain's Office Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [X] - 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: Officer Yeranokara was a suspect in a missing person's case which was opened some time before I arrived on station. I have spoken to my investigative team and will present the findings below. No action has been brought against Officer Yeranokara due to a transfer shuttle arriving soon after my arrival, interrupting the investigation. However, her actions and demeanor require further investigation. The following is a transcript of the interview performed by Detective Sandford. Transcript: [00:00] Recording started. [00:10] Samuel Sandford says, "State your name, and occupation, please." [00:47] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "Zioyana Yeranokara, Officerrrr." [00:58] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "Onboarrrd this.. Station. Aurrrrorrrra." [01:35] Samuel Sandford asks, "Miss Yeranokara, all I am here for is to ask a few questions which can help us in an active case. Do you consent to it?" [01:54] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "Go rrrrright ahead." [02:23] Samuel Sandford says, "Wonderful." [02:40] Samuel Sandford asks, "Now, as you might have heard, the chaplain hasn't been seen lately, correct?" [03:19] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "She has grrrreat faith they werrrre met with a fierrrrry, agonizing end. A sacrrrifice forrrr his crrrruel hand." [03:28] Samuel Sandford says, "I see." [04:32] Samuel Sandford asks, "Well, we wanted to talk to specifically you, because, we have confirmation that you were inside the chaplain's office. You were seen there, and we found your prints. Do you agree to that?" [04:59] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "Yes. She was the one that rrreporrrted this in the firrrst place, but it has gone unnoticed a second time now she sees." [05:33] Samuel Sandford asks, "Could you tell me, what was the purpose of you being there? In the backroom?" [06:15] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "She felt the aurrrrra of death and anguish. She saw the prrrrrocessed incinerrrratorrrr, she went to parrrtake in theirrrr death." [06:40] Samuel Sandford asks, "What do you mean by partake in their death, exactly. Assist? Watch?" [07:21] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "A marrrrk of the dead, a testimony to his eterrrnal rrrreach." [07:28] cat yells, "Esp!" [07:34] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "The ashes of the dead adorrrn herrr furrrr." [07:44] Samuel Sandford says, "...I. See." [09:02] Samuel Sandford asks, "I have confirmation that... You touched the crematorium. Was it just to open it, or?" [09:10] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "Corrrrrect." [10:08] Samuel Sandford asks, "Right. And, how are you so sure that the ashes that were found in the chaplain's backroom is from their body indeed?" [10:56] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "She does not know this. She can only assume as they arrre missing." [11:11] Samuel Sandford says, "I see." [11:21] Samuel Sandford asks, "Do you have anything that's worth noting to tell me?" [11:26] Samuel Sandford asks, "Anything that can help?" [12:37] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "She came acrrrrross this by luck, orrrr guidance frrrrom Rrrraskarrrra. They may pick whicheverrr they can rrrationalize. She has nothing to do with theirrrr demise, only theirrrr deathly enerrrrgies." [12:56] Samuel Sandford says, "Right." [14:07] Samuel Sandford asks, "And the last, and probably easiest question. Please don't take it personal, as it isn't. Did you kill the chaplain, Bob Fengton?" [14:28] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "She did not." [14:36] Samuel Sandford says, "Right." [14:43] Samuel Sandford says, "That'll be it, for now." [14:53] Samuel Sandford says, "I might have some more questions later." [14:58] Samuel Sandford says, "But for now, this is it." [15:02] Zioyana Yeranokara says, "Of courrrrrse." [15:18] Samuel Sandford says, "Interview end... 15:20." [15:29] Recording stopped. Physical evidence was lacking to charge Officer Yeranokara for any involvement regarding the disappearance of the Chaplain (Bob Fengton), however, after she arrived on-scene and reported the issue she began smearing the ashes in her fur citing some religious motive. Reviewing her records after transferring to Central I found the following hiring notes: "Personnel in question is highly religious and their behavior might deviate slightly from the norm. Nothing noteworthy." Submitting this for internal review. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: Suvek Tokash, Head of Security Actions taken: Investigation begun but unable to properly process charges due to transfer. Additional Notes: This is the first incident I have seen from Officer Yeranokara. I would recommend instruction in policy and/or procedure rather than termination or demotion. Further infractions should be met with transfer away from security into a position that better suits her gender.

Taping a remote signaler to a wall would allow you to simply click on it to activate the button. This would let you create makeshift door/bolts buttons wherever you wanted. Other possibilities exist using circuits. Use wirecutters or the drag-onto-self method to remove the taped signaler.

My gut reaction is to disagree with this suggestion. -In your example, as a chef with a knife, it depends heavily on the situation. If they are armed and armored mercs with lethal weapons your knife attack is entirely unrealistic. If they are a changeling and are trying to absorb you, under the current system you would be well within your rights to stab them in an attempt to escape. Stabbing them repeatedly, especially if they are down, would be over the line. -You have to remember that this is not your character's private home. You are at work and you've signed a contract with NanoTrasen that states you will abide by corporate regulations. Many IRL companies make sure their employees understand never to interfere with robbers, aggressive customers, ect. They want you to move to a safe location and call the police. - Security usually has to respond with non-lethal means until the situation escalates. Unless the antag is a merc or heister with clearly lethal weaponry security will stun/detain you until things escalate. If they don't then they're looking at a sec jobban.

Alright, sorry for the delay. Juani and I have had time to look through the logs, go through the additional information, and discuss the complaint. I want to start by saying that BSA's IC reasoning for detonating the bomb to disable the merc's ship is logical but not necessarily realistic. Both Juani and I agree that this is not something a detective should be doing without extreme need regardless of how simplistic the activation of the bomb is. Now, permission for the bombing was given at a time when no one else was near the ship and collateral damage would be low. Timestamps show that approximately five minutes had elapsed between when permission was given and the explosion itself. I spoke to Skull regarding the timestamps possibly being distorted/delayed but he assured me they are taken in real time. It is possible that this was all simply due to unfortunate timing but many of BSA's actions and comments (IC, OOC, and in discord after) raise a lot of red flags. He also has many comments, warnings, and bans from multiple staff members regarding similar behavior. All things considered, Juani and I have agreed that we will be reducing the perma-ban to a week-long security ban which will expire on December 23rd.

I think where I deviate from your thinking here is that I believe the traitor AI doesn't have to be as potent as malf. We can go back and forth all day long comparing strengths and weaknesses of the various antags, but what I appreciate about autotraitor AI is the ability to RP outside of your laws and not having to have started the round as AI to be considered for that role.

I'd like to request combat gloves, restricted to engineering or other jobs that require insulated gloves. They're effectively black insulated gloves with some temperature protection and you can sometimes find them in maint crates. I'd just like to not have to switch back and forth from my black gloves to my insulated gloves when doing repairs or search and hope RNG gives me some from maintenance. http://imgur.com/a/JAa0E

That statement can not be made this way, as the probability for this gamemode to occur in the secret rotation depend on the probabilities set in the configuration file. These probabilities can be tweaked by the administration (specifically the headmins) Even the opposite can be true as this PR adds the ability to better better set the chance for a malfunctioning AI to occur (as the malfunctioning AI is no longer mixed into the traitor gamemode) I guess the thing that worries me most is if AI is removed from auto-traitor, then it seems like only AI mains would get to experience the AI antag role. As it stands currently, you could join as AI after roundstart and still have a chance to turn traitor-AI. Unlike wizard, for instance, where you don't have to tailor your occupation to be considered for the role, if you wanted to play as antag AI you would have to modify your occupation preferences in addition to fighting against RNG for both the AI slot and round type. In essence, I would have to consistently play as and get the AI slot over multiple rounds to have a chance at it. I understand also that certain antag roles are restricted and can't be given to certain jobs. HoS is heavily restricted on almost all on-station antags I believe. But as HoS I still have the ability to opt-in to raider, merc, and other off-station antags, the same as everyone else. As I understand it, if you join the game as AI, you won't be considered for non-AI antag roles. Your antag options under the new changes will be MALF or bust. If the reason these changes were implemented was simply because the traitor-AI is weak, then I would rather buff it slightly with simple QoL changes. For example, giving traitor AI access to the traitor comms channel. Working with other traitors during the round would increase the chances that you're not simply waiting for sec/engineering to break down your core doors. If you really intend to remove the traitor-Ai role then I would at least implement what I suggested in my previous post and keep the AI in the autotraitor rotation, but as malf.

I enjoy the occasional ai traitor round mainly because it lets me act in ways that my laws would otherwise prevent. I don't necessarily need all the malf powers to have fun nor do I feel cheated when I die as AI traitor. I feel like removing ai from traitor, auto traitor specifically, puts my odds of getting these chances much lower than before. On par with wizard and ninja. If the goal is to get rid of traitor ai and replace it with malf, would it be possible to add malf to the auto traitor rotation?

Apologies if I came off as argumentative. I was just making sure my entire thought process was known.

I had two rules I was taking into consideration making this decision. First: No ganking. While antags will sometimes kill, it is expected for you to provide interesting roleplay to your targets first [...] While the interpretation of "interesting roleplay" is definitely subjective, from my perspective the purpose of this rule is not simply to have a checklist that you must complete in order to kill. The purpose is for players to be considerate to others and not only to keep them engaged in the round but to ensure that both of you are aware of the intentions of the other player. The feeling that simply pulling weapons and opening fire on each other is sufficient RP clearly wasn't mutual. Second: Only resort to killing if it makes sense or drives a story. Randomly killing someone because you’re a traitor will get you removed right quick. This also means that murder for the sake of murder is punishable. However, in certain situations, murder can serve as a tool, if none other applicable. If you’re uncertain, ask for guidance via adminhelps. From my perspective, his actions during the confrontation with the Captain and his subsequent actions against the AI were driven by a need to win. The Captain's player was not part of the equation when he took lethal action against him. He only saw a threat and moved to eliminate it. Regardless of the aforementioned fact that the Captain was at a sizable disadvantage, steps were taken to ensure that Butter would come out the victor. When the AI joined, his thought was... Both incidents occurring, one after another, showed a pattern; a lack of concern for other players. Regardless of any emergent storytelling that can occur simply from the combat mechanics, the rules against ganking and killing without cause, sufficient RP, and escalation exist to encourage dialogue and cooperation between players. These rules should always be kept in mind when combat is a possibility out of consideration for others, both antags and crew alike. I feel like a rewording of the warning would be in order. I stuck primarily to a play by play of the facts, but I feel the intent of the warning was lost.

I mean..... I would love to have the bull-horned sprite on the unathi suit so I don't have to make excuses for stealing the Captain's.... Please.

A couple things. First, there are tracking implants available in security and they are intended as a punishment for medium to high level crimes. I know it may differ from player to player, but for the most part implantation is usually seen as a bad thing. Second, I think what you're suggesting can be accomplished with fewer changes. The suit sensors already rely on telecomms to work properly. I'm not certain if this is already a mechanic but adding the ability for the radio jammer to also jam suit sensors would effectively allow the kind of stealth you're talking about. For antagonstis without an uplink, there are other means available. Changelings have a silence sting, vampires have dominate, cult can use emp to disable comms. I don't know if emp also disables suit sensors but that would be worth a look as well.

Additional Information: Game ID: bWE-dGLP I've looked over the logs that Butterrobber provided and they match what I have except they lack the attack logs from the incident with the captain. Below are screenshots from my log showing the attack logs from the initial confrontation. I think it's important to note that during this exchange the Captain was equipped with standard gear and you had them essentially trapped in their office with the aid of an emagged borg. Even if the first shot you made was because of your aiming at them, they were then flashed and tased by the borg and you moved in with an energy sword without further RP. The first line of the screenshots is the first attack log. The last line is where butterrobber's logs start. I can post the full logs from the round if needed.

The reason I issued this warning, in a nutshell, is that other players are allowed to defend themselves against your attacks as an antagonist. You cannot retroactively use their defensive actions as escalation or reason for lack of RP in the first place.

I have my logs saved at my computer and will post them when I get home. To clarify, I was the AI in this round. I joined the game soon after the attack on the Captain at approximately the same time that the ahelp came in regarding the attack. If I was unresponsive it was due to either lack of camera access because much of the bridge had its cameras destroyed or because I was speaking with you or others about the incidents.

TBH, if the blob squares were stronger and less likely to be memed destroyed by the emitter, and if the blob did much less damage to walls I think it would be a more entertaining and persistent threat that just a giant green glob that flattens whole sections of the station. It would be more like a thick and resiliant slime, mostly contained by walls that slowly oozes down the passages.

That would be interesting. So, for example, if there was a cult present and you swiped for ERT, you might get an ERT or maybe it spawns a Merc team? One that command would have to pay or placate for help?

If they add a permanent shield room it needs to be placed on the main line and not the civilian surface subgrid.

Can you extrapolate on this? If ERT was whitelisted it would be of some deterant to calling the ERT early or without reason.

No, I agree. They would need to be whitelisted if given that power.

It might be useful to make the ERT a double edged sword for command. Have them come aboard and take care of any issues, but because they were called they will effectively suspend the Captain and/or the heads of staff under whose authority the problem lies. Similarly to how it's the CE's ass if the engine blows. The company, having to waste resources securing the station might consider the relevant heads as guilty of neglect. Arrests and transport back to Odin may also apply. This way you can have a force to stop overwhelming antag forces, but command may also lose their positions and freedom. This may require the ERT role to be whitelisted, but I think that would be fair if given more power.

Honestly, a QOL upgrade for me that would speed up engine setup without taking away any agency I have in how it's setup would be to simply replace the two nitrogen canisters in storage with phoron canisters. This would mean you have four nitrogen canisters already in the engine room and three phoron canisters in storage for your average phoron setup. No need to break into atmos.

I like some of these suggestions, but as an engine tech I wouldn't like having most of my job done for me.

Pretty straight forward. It's a medical device, has almost the exact sprite as a medical scanner health analyzer. It cheeses my onions trying to get my inventory in order when I play virology.

I've gone ahead and edited the original post so that it is more in keeping with the intent of the changes. Notably verbiage such as "low CHV" has been changed to "lowered or reduced CHV" and "high CHV" was edited to "baseline or augmented CHV". Originally, stating that normal crew would have "low CHV" would indicate some kind of hindrance or restriction, but normal crew CHV should be considered baseline and not detrimental until certain actions trigger a reduction.