Synnono

In my opinion, our 'old' lore for the types of different AIs, and the overall flexibility those types of AIs gave to players to write interesting character concepts was suitably good fiction for a group RP fantasy setting. Yes, it was not 100% realistic, and yes, it was contradictory and incomplete in places (like almost every facet of the lore as it exists right now), but it left room for player creativity and improvement via addition, rather than subtraction. To me, the greatest strength of the synthetic 'race' is that their extreme variance and potential make them unique to every other species - even to humans, who all the other species emulate or caricaturize in some way. The recent posibrain changes were an interesting step in the direction of realism, but I believe they took away more options than they provided to players, while not addressing the stated goal of "making IPCs less of a meme race." As Jackboot once put forward, we're playing more of a science-fantasy than a science-fiction, and more than one mind is at work in shaping the setting. A single vision will probably not make it all the way to universal acceptance unscathed, especially when the goal is (arguably) to have fun, rather than to perfect the simulation. From my time participating in/building worlds for roleplay's sake, it seems apparent to me that players will always find ways to subvert background lore if they want to, no matter how hard the setting or the DM try to stop it. Because of that, I disliked the idea of cleaving through the previous fiction to try and address problems with a handful of players, and I still do. As a quick thought regarding the contest and the community perception of IPCs: I believe there is more to gain than there is to lose by enabling them to move beyond the perception that they are robots with hard limits and/or luxury property, and nothing more. There will still be players who choose to be that more robotic, limited form because it suits their characters, but the potential for synthetic life to blur the lines of those expectations are part of what makes it all very compelling for me. I would hate to see questions about those blurry lines written out of our setting by a background that is too stark or exclusive. What is, in your opinion, 'the server's robotic flow?' In terms of characters and lore, we have players who feel that the line needs to be drawn at "beep boop open door" roleplay, players who like to blur the line between traits that are "real" and traits that are emulated, and players who, for better or for worse, would like to play as though they are entirely organic but also metal. What is your sweet spot for supporting lore on that spectrum, keeping in mind both your own vision and those of the people whose characters you'll affect with your writing? How do you intend to address players who disrupt that flow I asked you to define above? What do you consider to be some of your primary influences for writing synthetic fiction, and how does that play into any of your short-term plans, if at all? Thanks for taking the time to read and respond, and for making this thread to prompt discussion.

This, generally. Our rules surrounding believability, self-antagging and our general discouragement of people standing out makes for a lot of confusion around when it's okay to make exceptions. It's the same issue that plagues a lot of Rev rounds, without the benefit of having the big R antag icon over your head. All in all, it was an interesting scenario which opened a few avenues for characters to RP in new ways, so I like how it went. Thanks to everyone who put this on and spent time planning/communicating. Things could have gone more smoothly if certain expectations were communicated more clearly on both the staff and player sides of things farther ahead of time, but for what was shared I feel like the execution went well overall.

Betrayer! Deserter! Filthy turncoat turnponcho! What is this, robot Canada?

((Event memes!))

If balancing changes are to be considered, I'd rather they be considered for non-human races that are too strong or weak, rather than changing the template human species. Since this isn't a carefully balanced tabletop ruleset or other RPG, I don't necessarily mind if perfect balance is not achieved, either. As long as folks who abuse a whitelist to powergame are addressed, there can be some strong species.

Well it ended up happening, in a sense. Xeno round happened and nearly killed the entire crew. Captain + the HoP finally got the nuke code through requesting it in the funny authentication procedure sitting in front of fiery death. Captain got killed. HoP was mindslaved by the xenos. Two HAPT operatives had to be deployed to try to nuke the station. They died. A slave to the xenos defused the nuke. And then sol marines had to be deployed with a dark gygax and many pulse rifles to enact a suicide mission against a very robust alien queen. Station got nuked. Very excellent round. That round was exciting and fun to play in, but it was also an example of the system not working. If it weren't for the full squad of suicidal deathmuhreens and dark gygax from the Icarus, the station wouldn't have blown up. Successful self-destruct shouldn't be a guaranteed outcome, of course, but TequilaJoe raises a good point. The situations in which this course of action is acceptable are also the least likely to be ones where the Captain has the luxury of standing around and following the procedure as outlined. Staff actually had to help him out in this case by broadcasting the code via global announcement, which Central (I'm assuming) would normally not do. He also died, as Captains are wont to do, and it took a bunch of APT doods and a meme-level exosuit to set off the bomb. I like that the system has built-in admin checks on such a drastic action, but if every instance needs to rely on as much adminbus as this one did, it will be pretty dysfunctional. Looking forward to seeing more situations in which it's attempted so that it has a chance to prove itself.

Character is ineligible to be a head of staff, are you sure you read the wiki pages?

0. Bar patrons don't give a shit. Creating these situations is the root of the bad RP outlined in the points of the OP. No obvious and chronic alcoholic would get away with feeding that addiction in the extreme, at work, in a hazardous space environment while on duty. While command and the service staff could occasionally do a better job managing the patrons while the station is burning down from that phoron fire, the characters on the stools should also be following server guidelines by playing believable characters. Offenders, let alone repeat offenders, would very likely end up on some kind of leave, in detox, suspended or terminated for that kind of behavior. There's some self-policing required here.

XenosTiger puts good thought behind their synthetic personalities, and while I have much more experience with Epsilon than with Angel, I remember Angel being aboard quite a bit when I was becoming an active player again, and Zahra downloaded her at least once. She reminds me a little bit of a whitelist character I created in 2015, who had a goal of learning, integrating, emulating qualities, and blurring the line that separates living intelligence and designed intelligence. In my opinion, the question of what defines each is central to the appeal of a man-made synthetic species, and I trust that Xenos is going to want to explore things like that based on several good discussions with their characters. I've witnessed a different and enjoyable character conflict with the player's cyborg character Epsilon as well, which gives me faith in the player's ability to turn their concepts into unique and memorable people. Xenos is usually going out of their way to run around and engage with other players, looking for plot hooks and creating discussions. They're the kind of player I would love to see enabled by a whitelist, and in my opinion would be a healthy addition to the ranks of the IPC beep-boopers. I do have a question regarding Angel, however: having some idea of who the rich man in Angel's backstory is, does she even have a reason to come back to work at NanoTrasen? If so, is it one you can share here? Even with elevated freedom, it's likely she's still owned by something/someone, given the political state of the Tau Ceti system. Do they have reason to send Angel back to the Exodus?

Nice to hear from you Nebula! Good luck at school!

I think what Hunter was trying to say in the title is that they have played a few other characters now. I'm not sure what impact this is supposed to have on Edgar re-re-re-re-applying for the RD position, however. With the exception of one, I'm also not sure who any of these characters are, or what sort of impact they could have had on Hunter's writing/attitude in the few weeks it's been. Aside from seeing the character occasionally get angry or start a fight, or selling RnD products retail from the lab desk, I don't often see roleplay that characterizes Edgar. From the IC standpoint of any scientist I'd play, I'm not sure why he should be my boss, or why he even wants to be that in the first place. The play I see from him in the game is not typically consistent with what I see written in the application, though that could be due to the player enjoying antagonist roles. Otherwise, OOC thoughts on this application are already written down in the handful of other threads. In the time between the last application and this one, I was asked by Hunter to give them feedback on their play and their character, and in my opinion most of it was summarily ignored or argued away. I don't imagine things have changed in the 2-3 weeks it's been since the last application was closed.

I share these concerns, but the tech could also be tied to the alert conditions. Maybe we only need helmet cams on external-threat-confirmed code red situations because privacy or something?

This. If rule number one applied to our characters, we'd all be banned by now. Oreki Nomura called my IA character a two-dollar whore the first time they spoke, and he's still around! There's some evidence of going too far in the specific incident, but it was called out and seems to have already been analyzed by the OP and others. Also this. The player doesn't go out of their way to ruin anyone's fun the vast majority of the time, and even when they're antagging they're typically playing to bring people in, not take them out. Generally speaking, I trust them to take other people into consideration OOC more consistently than many of us. I think that the permanent nature of this ban to a character who is 146% engineer is not a punishment that will make most of us better off in the end. I'd also like to see the phrase "Warning expired and no longer active!" mean a little more than it seems to, here. It seems like a lot of bans are the result not of one specific act, but of a history of actions. If we consider the entire history all the time, why have warnings expire at all?

I'm up for this! Light me up, boss.

I'm pretty sure that was a revolution round and security was purposefully acting up. If they weren't, IAAs everywhere should be having coniptions. Here's one for CCIA: Has the organization ever nakedly abused its power for the memes, and if so, how?

I don't see much direct play with Raymond, but from observations and my IAA's interaction with him I have a very positive impression of the character. He's played capably as a leader, has a believable and relatable human side, and manages to sneak some humor into situations without turning them into complete memes. He's also a command staff character I trust to strike the balance between enjoyably escalating antag shenanigans in a round and doing his duty as a HoS or Captain. Basically I like it when he's around, and also what UM said up there.

Can we reconcile these statements first? I'm especially interested in what 'reasonable' is being defined as in the second quote. Isn't it a creative decision that the creator of a platform would make, or that a platform with whatever motivation to makes for itself? Aren't these the kinds of things we want to examine in an app or review on a case basis, instead of writing it all off as 'a meme?' I don't want to turn this into another discussion thread necessarily, but I still feel as though changes to lore or the mechanics won't deter or get at the people who make the species 'a meme species.' Player behavior doesn't typically change through retcons, from what I've observed. Oversight is what I believe would be more effective, even if it does add up to more hands-on work than a policy change.

Nice Meme To make your dreams of conquest reality, you might have to actually play!

This. Hopeful for a re-evaluation down the line. Thanks for the heads-up.

I've played with MatterL recently on my hydroponicist, Ivy Liu. Before going through the application, my impression of this player in the handful of rounds I've played with or observed them has been positive. They are an articulate and responsive writer, and get engaged with the people around them. They also seem respectful, in the sense that they don't appear to a be font of toxic memes or excessive OOC salt. This is always a perk! This is one of the better answers to this question I've read. Other people may disagree or have another take on what "purpose" means, but in terms of roleplay, Heads ideally have more knowledge of a situation and better access to new information than other players. Doling that out to the right people is what can turn someone's boring round into a great one. There's more to say here in terms of specifics, since playing a Head character also means you should have knowledge of the server's IC and OOC policies surrounding the escalation of a round or conflict, etc.. Much of that is covered in the rules/regulations though, and new player in a Head position will have learning to do. I'm not sure I entirely understand this paragraph as it pertains to the question. While it's good to enable character story and development, anyone in any position on the station can do that. You also effectively answer with this in the previous question. Maybe ask yourself what sorts of OOC qualities you expect in a player with a whitelisted role, and write about those? Backstories on these things aren't as important to me as the OOC questions, but still deserve a look! There's no need to reveal anything you'd rather not about your character in this thread, but a better understanding of why he is who he is may help justify his in-game promotion attempts. Why did Matt's mother require him to study something medical? It doesn't seem like there's much crossover between Xenobio and Robotics. Was Matt a particularly adept student, or was this dual major and subsequent PhD grind rough on him? How did he advance in a robotics program while working with another, unrelated lab? This is tricky for new players and supremely nitpicky, but thanks to a bunch of OOC update shenanigans, we work and play on the NSS Exodus. The NSS Aurora, as we played on in 2015, has been decommissioned/retconned/destroyed by mercenaries/repainted in taupe until we get the revised map for it. Which will be never. I think. We talk about neither thing. Characters who live outside Tau Ceti do sometimes seem to commute to work via bluespace shuttles and gate networks, though some players find that silly. If it would be a financial hardship on Matt, why did he decide to stay in the Republic of Biesel? Where's he living now within the system, out of curiosity? I can appreciate the several mentions of Matt wanting to pick up management and leadership skills in this application. Not every character always makes a good manager, and some applying players don't seem to think such character skills are necessary. However, keep in mind that the wiki wants 10 years of experience and preferably several doctorates in a Director candidate. Matt may be technically qualified in terms of raw requirements, but he's probably competing with older, more learned scientists for the chance to lead the research program. What sets him apart from his peers to such a degree that the company wants to trust him with a leadership role? Thanks for taking the time to read over this and answer the questions. Remember you can push your application via link in the OOC channel once per round, and also in our server's Discord chat. You probably should do this to get more feedback, since you're a new face and people need to be dragged here kicking and screaming before they write something!

Just leaving this here, since my opinion hasn't really changed: Glad to see this applicant return. They're present and smart, have an appropriately thick skin, and laugh at the right things. So there!

Hi there. I've played with you as Ekaterina on my Lab Assistant, Zahra Karimi, and with Jack Walker on my nurse, Brianna Collins. Of the two of them, I find Ekaterina to be more memorable, but not necessarily for reasons that would suggest there will be good Head of Staff roleplay from your other characters. She's the sort of character who will make guns 'because reasons' and generally be difficult to control. That kind of play can be fun for the character, but not always for the people around her. I have less experience with Jack, but most of it involves rote medical play (gameplay, not roleplay) for treating people who come into the medbay. Attempts to strike up a conversation with Jack mostly seem to fail, either for some medical emergency happening, or for what I perceive as disinterest on the character's part. The end result is that I have very little idea of who Jack is, or why he should be my boss. Considering that, I'll go through this and ask what comes to mind about both you and him: I don't think this is a good way to look at things. Having a Head of Staff whitelist is not some sort of mark of prestige or rank. To me, it's just the server agreeing that you can play roles that may heavily affect roleplay and fun for the people around you. There are players I know who would tell you that it's actually pretty stressful, and not really all that glorious. This is an answer I'd agree with. I'd call extra attention here to 'developing characters' in the plural. Collaboration with other people around you is what makes better stories, and as a Head you're going to be in contact with your department's players (and the rest of Command's players) pretty constantly. I think this is the hardest question to answer on the app, but this response seems like it's better suited to the next question about responsibilities to other players, which you answer in pretty much the same way. Do you feel you understand the things that you are expected to know and do as a head, in terms of the server rules, and the gameplay and storytelling of a round? If so, what are they? If not, why not? This is a little nitpicky, but since Ekaterina and Jack have both mentioned being from Earth countries in game - 'Sol 4' would be Mars. You're looking for Sol 3, or just 'Earth' since that's what humans still call the planet. A little fact-checking and proofreading goes a long way toward people taking your writing more seriously. This all details Jack's education/past career, which could be technically feasible, but tells me very little about him. By the time he'd completed a residency to the point where he could be qualified as a surgeon and virologist (an unusual combination), he'd be pushing the age limit for enlistment in many armies. Why did he decide to give up practicing medicine - something that is very likely better income - for enlisting and taking a combat role in the military? If his desire to join the military due to his father was strong, why did he wait until he was probably in his thirties? Keep in mind most combat medics aren't fully qualified MDs, or even close. There's a logical gap in this paragraph that I can't fill. Assuming that Jack felt strongly enough about the military to pass on a successful medical career for an army career, what's stopping him from staying enlisted after being cloned? His previous injuries wouldn't have mattered with a new body. What attracted him to working for NanoTrasen afterward, or alternatively, why did NanoTrasen go out of its way to scout him and place him in Tau Ceti? Thank you for taking the time to go over these thoughts and offer responses to the questions. You'd also improve your application by checking your formatting, spelling, punctuation and grammar. If someone is having a hard time reading what you write, they're probably going to stop reading it.