Arrow768

While you have mentioned things you dislike, and have mentioned some things that you think should be changed you have not described how it should be changed (in sufficient detail to make any changes)

After a discussion we came to the conclusion that the wording of the denial reason wasn't ideal as it implied that feedback is required, which is not the case. Feedback is not required and in absence of feedback, the application will be judged by what is available in the application itself. Given that you had some rather questionable remarks in it (as pointed out in the reasoning for the denial), we (Mofo and I) believe that the denial in that case was justified. The denial reason due to the being new to the server is also valid. If you are new to the server it is likely that you are unaware of the general culture and how to properly represent the species in question. The lore writer in question does not have a way to judge you outside of your application, the optional feedback and your join date (as lore writers do not have access to player notes). Given that you did not have any optional feedback (which would have been useful as testimony to your roleplaying abilities), they had to make a judgement based on the content of your application and your account age. I can understand your frustration with that system (and I am not absolutely happy with it either) but it is currently the best thing we could come up with that strikes a balance between the effort required to get a whitelist and the ability to ensure people actually read the lore and are able to play a character that respects it. That said, we do not want to change or reduce the requirements for species applications in the near future (unless someone can come up with a alternative system that can satisfy our needs). In case of your application, I recommend to contact the relevant lore writer via dm, to clear up any questions you might have about the denial reason.

Binning as it has been a week since the creation and two dismissals have been added.

Moving this to policy suggestions. I also brought it up with the Lore Masters. I´ll post a resolution here once we have one @Lordnesh

I would recommend to read the rules of this subforum and re-format your post accordingly. You can find them here at the top of the page: https://forums.aurorastation.org/forum/21-unban-requests/

Moving to the archive as the relevant PR has been closed.

Going to move that to policy suggestions since that's related to administrative rulings and not the code itself.

It is already possible to search items by using CTRL+F

Should be available next round. Moving to completed.

Should be available next round. Moving to implemented.

Voting for dismissal. If something can be solved by a simple mechanical implementation instead of relying on administrative action the mechanical implementation is the way to go. Therefore it has been solved by a mechanical implementation by looking at who needs to be in maint and assigning the access accordingly.

Given that the person who banned you also has a life outside of ss13 it can take a while until they get back to you. However, you should follow the established format and edit your op accordingly if you want to prevent your unban request from being binned when they get around to look into it. If you don’t know what I mean by “established format” I would advise you to check the pinned topics in this forum. (Which you would have found if you bothered to read the unban forum rules)

Voting for dismissal as the suggestions by the OP are not wanted. (Removal / Revert) However one thing that should be done and was suggested by @Cnaym is scaling the starting count with the crew count (or change it so there are more antags per crew member if already implemented). Most of the other suggestions by @Cnaym can already be done by the players (the head fellows / contenders already spawn with the announcers and a special uplink that can be used to purchase antag gear). Randomized objectives (from a pre-selected list) is what we had in the mutiny gamemode which got removed due to its repetitiveness. Another issue is the following: Imho administration should tell people who get selected for a antag type (be it because they voted for it or because they selected it in their preferences) and who want out to suck it up. The "i dont want to play $antag" is not helping the overall environment. I played quite a few rounds as captain and quite a few times I have been selected as loyalist or recruited by a faction. Going the "meh, I dont like that mode so I wont play" is not helpful for the overall progress of the round and even if I had little interest to play that specific mode, I still did it. Another thing that could help fix this situation is the long planned gamemode rework. (Players vote for a "intensity" and the antags they want to see. The antag votes are put into a weighted list and from that list and with the intensity setting a number of antags are selected to occur in the round. People who voted for the antag can be drafted to play that antag if selected)

I am not a big fan of the WIP Role names and would prefer if we could get rid of the "specialist" in most of them. It seems to be similar to the "everyone is a engineer"-thing that is common nowadays (just with specialist).

Application accepted following a trial.

Application accepted following a trial period.

Application accepted without trial given the already established track record.

Yup, I support that. LOOC should be used for clarifications as needed (be that spelling mistakes, teaching mechanics that cant be explained icly, ...) and not as a IC replacement or for dumb memes.

Keep the rules of that subforum in mind when deciding if you should post or not. Hearsay is not sufficient.

The items available in the loadout (most importantly the uniforms) will be reviewed once the NBT hits.

This already exists in the form of the antag_scaling_coeff. Depending on the number of players in the game / readied up the antag count is increased.

The long term goal is to move the IRs from the forums to the WI, as the WI enables automatic validation / checks of quite a few things. Some of the groundwork is currently being made (i.e. https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/9155 which links notes/warnings to the game_id amongst other things), but there is still a lot of work to do. The key points of the planned system are: Automatic validation of the entered data (i.e. game id, char names, ckeys, ...) Automatic checks for administrative action (notes/warnings/bans) Player-Query for Antag interaction (we already have that to some extend) Automatic notification of the involved parties via ingame message. With these improvements it should be possible to resolve IRs much quicker, as the data-entry is performed by the ir-submitter and a lot of admin-checks are automated away. The only time when a admin-review would be necessary with this system in in case of the existence of notes/warnings and if someone has claimed "antag involvement" during their interview.

I would disagree here, as the name “Anti Material Rifle” implies that it’s supposed to be used against military equipment. (And high anti-personnel damage is just a side effect of the anti-material capability)

I concur with the tldr by @Doxxmedearly

I don’t think you are active enough to become a mod with just 11 connections and 7 rounds played since the start of 2020. So I have to -1 this application.