Jump to content


Head Admins / Devs
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Arrow768

  • Rank
    Head Developer

Linked Accounts

  • Byond CKey

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Since this suggestion is based on incorrectly presented information (as pointed out by Matt) I am voting for dismissal
  2. Well, I really dont like the wording of the law with the attached "excluding hivebots".
  3. Your complaint to me was "that there is a serious conflict of interest [due to their IC interactions with Marwani]" and that you believe this post is too influenced by your IC interactions. As this post raised valid questions and Evandorf was not handling the complaint, I saw no reason to remove that post. I also told you to report posts that you believe violate forum rules. To reiterate: Your complaint to me was about a potential conflict of interest they had when making a post on your player complaint/ban request. I handled that and informed you that I dont see them being influenced by any IC actions (also they did not handle your complaint). I also advised you later on to report any forum posts that you believe violate rules. You never told me that you want to complain to me about their IC interactions with you, so I didnt handle that as I assumed it was just to provide context to your complaint about the post being too influenced. As you should know, we have a player complaint forum to handle stuff like that.
  4. Well, I forgot to take care of that. Trial started on the 26.10.19
  5. Given that both Skull and I disagreed with this suggestion and the way that escalated I´m gonna move that to the bin. As outlined above, Mice are already played in a way that is often problematic and this would just extend to station pets (who are even more visible than mice)
  6. I have to concur with what Garn said. The peacekeepers is not a good fit. This has also been suggested in the topic that caused the removal of the borg and has been rejected back then aswell (if I remember correctly) Therefore I am second Ing the vote for dismissal on this topic. However I would not be opposed to a new module if there is a gap that needs to be filled and that gap is not filled by porting a bad meme. (but that's something for a new topic)
  7. Yup I have to concur, mice are often played very badly and I don't see why this would be different with pets. Unless we whitelist them.
  8. Moving to rejected due to inactivity and dismissal by Alb.
  9. As mentioned by alb, you can already ahelp those with unbelievable prescriptions due to the "power gaming" and "believable character" rules Therefore second Ing the vote for dismissal.
  10. BYOND Key: arrow768 Game ID: b3b-dj9w Player Byond Key/Character name: xanderdox / Klaus Eliade Staff involved: None Reason for complaint: Repeatetly Frontlining as Captain Did you attempt to adminhelp the issue at the time? If so, what was the known action taken by administration/moderation? Ahelped but ticket was not taken. Approximate Date/Time: 2019-09-12 00:00 GMT+1 Xander has been repeatetly playing his captain/HoS in a way that is frontlining and putting themselves in needless danger. In this round they went up against 3 heisters in security with a single security officer in tow (during the height of the engagement). They got shot with ballistic weapons, moved in close with the telebatton in an attempt to take them out ,did not retreat even when they head the chance and the other officer was severely wounded. They had multiple chances to retreat during the whole encounter yet they took none of them. Instead they took on multiple heisters armed only with their telebatton and disarm spam. They even managed to get into maintenance (while bleeding), yet they circled around to engage them again (after briefly patching themselves up with a medkit). This ultimately resulted in their death. This behavior should not fly as a captain and xander has been ahelped and banned a number of times for behavior like that, yet he still manages to pull it off.
  11. What a downgrade. From moderator to CCIA. On a more serious note: I think he´s going to make a pretty good CCIA Agent. One thing I noticed in the interview is that command is generally expected to handle most things on their own and you seem to be a relatively inclined to do hand holding. (Keep in mind that ignoring a fax or replying that command "is expected to handle issues on their own or specify why that is not possible" is an option) But other than that, no complaints.
  12. Indeed, that´s exactly the reason why the default frequency is not the common frequency. Therefore voting for dismissal as having the minor inconvenience of having to change the frequency is worth the failsafe that the station wont instantly know that there is a outside force "somewhere in coms range" if someone accidentally uses common.
  13. After discussion the following change will be implemented: Heads of staff will no longer be able to issue work orders to employees from other departments. This solves the issue that the HoS is able to give the QM a valid order which has to be executed by them. Any employee is able to ignore work orders given to them by other heads of staff in standard operation, unless they act with captain authority once the changes are implemented. The directives and chain of command will be updated to reflect this and a announcement will be made once the changes have been fully implemented.
  14. Moved this to policy suggestions. We (Headmins/devs + CCIABS) are currently discussing what exactly the purpose of the QM is and what liberty they have in relation to employees / heads of staff. With the current directives / chain of command the following is the case: The QM is the superior of the cargo techs / shaft miners (as defined via directive 3, join text and the chain of command) This means the Chain of Command for cargo is as follows: Captain -> HoP -> Other Heads -> QM -> Cargo Techs / Shaft Miners. Therefore failing to fulfill a order (which can be fulfilled, has been filed properly and paid for) after one of your superiors ordered you to fulfill it, is considered failure to execute an order. However if your character has a good IC reason to deny that order they can contact the HoP / Captain for clarification (as they are above the other heads of staff). If a non-head of staff orders something, the QM can do with that order as they please, as the person ordering it, is not a superior to the QM (and therefore can not order them to fulfill a order). In addition, if a cargo tech / shaft miner fails to execute a order given by the QM they can be charged with failure to execute an order. For Reference: https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Chain_of_Command https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Station_Directives
  • Create New...