Arrow768

AFAIK you can only chew boxes with food inside of them. Chewing other boxes has been removed.

Given that a configuration variable to disable player rats exists, the PR has been closed. This configuration variable will be used if there is sufficient support for the removal.

The rest of the pr was imho worth trying out. It's only the weird mix of ic and ooc within the laws (that becomes especially weird when stating laws; who/what is the borgs "your unit") that bothered us (the maintainers) and led to the closure of the pr as not wanted.

Then this should be added to the "welcome text" which is displayed when you join instead of every law.

I don't think those changes are needed, as the laws are presented in a ic manner and therefore refer to the borg/ai and not the player. Adding "your unit" to it just mixes ic and ooc in a weird way. Voting for dismissal.

Alright. Now on the correct application: If they managed to play "Betty", then they can manage the Corporate Liaison. +1

Actually I think I confused you with @Ventii

They managed to properly roleplay as Betty, so I am sure they can manage a consular.

I think there are two things mixed together here. A system to track the outcome of investigations (no matter the source) in a consistent and centralized manner (simmilar to the notes system on the server). And a system to confidentially report things. Peronally I am not a huge fan of the current system which (in some cases) encourages players to DM a staff member with their grievances (be it a headmin/dev about staff behavior or a admin due to player behavior). The problem with it is, that it is often not clear who has investigated what, what evidence has been investigated and what the resolution was. This is further complicated if the handling person retires from the staff team. Even if the investigation, and its outcome is communicated to other relevant people (I.e. Me pinging skull about something I looked into) then that information will most likely be forgotten after some time has passed due to the nature of discord. So I do agree that there should be some sort of system to (at least) track the investigations that occurred, their process and outcome in a orderly manner. (We have something like that already as the staff complaint archive, but that is not the easiest to navigate and only works for staff complaints) The biggest question is if confidential reports are worth implementing. (As quite often a person will be able to detuct from the context who complained about them. Which is the main augment for confidential complaints.) Personally I could see such a system being implemented, however with a much stricter "access control". (I.e. In addition to the usual staff complaint format, having to specify why it is not possible to report something as staff complaint; and if there is insufficient reasoning, such a report is rejected)

Imho its not worth the effort to change it, only to change it back when the shipmap hits.

Voting for dismissal, as we will move away from the asteroid to a ship setting, where a beacon will not make much sense (hitting a moving target that changes course/speed/direction is rather difficult; a resupply shuttle also feels much more natural in that environment than a delivery pod / BDRD to exchange items )

Well, as I mentioned a few times on discord, I am not against reworking how EMPs / Ions work. However they still need to have a substantial impact on IPCs. The gist that was that (imho) ipcs should have some sort of "malfunction" value that increases with exposure to EMPs and slowly decreases over time. Depending on the value of the "malfunction" variable, the following could happen: grayscale vision slowdown dropping things inability to move damage ...

The Server-poll is over. Those are the results: Question: Should the AI be removed? I do not care: 12 Yes: 41 No: 101

Yup, no point for another useless role. Just move the lightswitch.

I´d support restricting the more advanced augments exclusively to humans.

Given that none of the admins have disagreed with skulls interpretation here, I will move that to the implemented policy forum as this is effectively implemented already. So if you believe someone deserves a ban for w/e reason, file a player complaint and it is upon the administrative staff to decide if and what sort of punishment is needed.

This is currently being actively enforced by the administrative staff. Moving to accepted policy.

Seconding the vote for dismissal, as this part of the sentence you want to remove is not covered by the first part of the regulation: Such items would now be permitted if this clarification is removed, as long as they are supplied by NT. (However that is not wanted)

Given the replacement of loyalty implants with mindshields, this is no longer feasible. Therefore moving to rejected policy.

Supporting the dismissal for the reasons stated by alb. If something has a sexual undertone it will be removed.

Given that this has been retracted by the OP I´ll move it to Rejected Policy.

Supporting the dismissal by lancer as this is already sufficiently covered by the guide to contraband.

Seconding the vote for dismissal for the above stated reasons. However I would not be against adding hairnets, ... to the kitchen / medical.

Seconding the vote for dismissal. Bad security play should be ahelped and handled on a ooc level.

Seconding Skull here and moving it to rejected policy suggestions. The description of the PR needs to explain what the PR is about. The title should be related or it will get changed by the maintainers.