Arrow768

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

One of my concerns with the mind shield implant is that it implicitly acknowledges the existence of entities that might alter the state of mind on a supernatural level. (If that wouldnt exist, you wouldnt have to shield someone from it by using a implant) Therefore my questions are: "What is the IC reason that it has been developed and certain command members forced to use it?" "Why are only two command members required to have it if all it does is shield against "supernatural/bad" influence, but doesnt force their thinking in certain situations as the loyalty implant?"

To clear something up: There are currently no plans by the development team to remove the AI or make them a thing that does not exist by default and explicitly needs to be built. That said, I agree that there is a quality issue with some AIs, especially with those that try to simulate extensive "personality". However, I do not agree that the way to go about this is yet another whitelist, as whitelists do not do much in terms of quality control. (See various heads of staff out there) First and foremost they are a means of limiting access. Since something needs to be done we are currently discussing if the issue can be resolved by being more aggressive with our blacklist (AI jobbans). Once there is something more concrete, it will be published on the forums/discord. Therefore, as there are no plans to remove the AI out of standard rotation (which seems to have prompted this topic) and because I believe that yet another whitelist will not be able to solve the AI quality issues I am voting for dismissal of this suggestion.

I have to concur with the -1s given aswell. It a recent Malf round you went out of your way to start cutting AI control wires when the Ai did (in my opinion) not escalate sufficiently as they didnt use their control to impact the crew in any way (from what I saw)

Cargo and Research have a autolathe. You can head there and request items from them.

Voting for dismissal. The plasma cutter is being removed in a upcoming PR. However a instant-kill / lockdown button has been removed for malf borgs so it would not make sense to re-introduce that for drones.

The main difference between the engineering changes (make it easier to setup power/shields) and the proposed research changes (giving research almost complete research levels at the start of the round) is that if engineering does not setup the engine / shields it is quite often a round-ender, where as with research that is not the case. It is just the unwillingness to invest effort to get higher research levels to do more interesting things. Sure it´s not the most interesting thing to do, but if you want high level items, then you should have to do something for it and not just be handed it "for free" and without any effort. Regarding the "cargo takes so long to bring us the items". As I said: You can become proactive, head there and ask them if you can look through the warehouse for interesting items.

Voting for dismissal. This concept already exists with the items in the cargo warehouse. Just go to cargo and ask them if they have any items that you can use to increase your research levels.

Voting for dismissal. We already have a ooc rule that requires people to ahelp before tampering with the engine. If the engine has been tampered with by a griefer, ahelp and admins can determine if it was grief and fix it if needed. In addition, there are currently a few things planned to lessen the impact of the engine delamination (Most notably moving tcoms a bit so it doesnt blow up if the engine delams)

Voting for dismissal as this does not work due to the nature of the forums. The forums receive soo many posts that moderators can not check every single post that is made and therefore we have to rely on the community to report offensive posts. The issue with that is that some areas get more traffic than others, therefore offensive posts in areas with more traffic are discovered faster than posts in areas with less traffic. Implementing your solution would prevent the enforcement of rules (and punishment of the players for breaking the rules) if a post violating the rules in a high traffic area is discovered before a post violating the rules in a low traffic area.

As mentioned by others: That wouldnt work as a gamemode, because there is only a very limited number of ways this can go. It might however work as a away mission/ghost role

I have to vote for dismissal here. There are already steps in place to deal with the "you are not on the crew, so you must be a antag"-meta, so that should remove the need for the captains spare id. If you want to be added to the crew manifest, you can already ahelp for that and depending on your reasons for it that might or might not happen. In addition, we now have a ghost role that occurs every now and then with a visitor arriving from the odin, that doesnt have any records stationside. -> So having no records is also no reason to immediately valid someone.

As some of you have noticed, we now have ghost roles available. If you have ideas for additional ghost roles, make sure to post them below and they might get implemented.

Application accepted following a successful trial

Application accepted following a successful trial

Application is denied due to inactivity. You are encouraged to reapply once you are more active.

Definitly interesting. I might work on that soon ™️

I want to correct only one thing: The purpose of player complaints is not to request the ban of a person. That is what ban requests are for.

Well, the thing you linked is for tgui. We dont have tgui. -> We are Using vueui, which is a completely different system. But still, something like that should be possible with our GUI System aswell.

Voting for dismissal for the reasons stated by @Karolis2011 and @Shadow

Autoantag currently checks for a simple condition: If there are not sufficient active antags for the current population (there is a ratio somewhere), then new antags are added. So new antags are only added during autotraitor if one (or more) of these conditions applies The population increases Antags die (or go to cryo) The cynic in me would say: "If security wouldnt kill all the antags they find there wouldnt be a constant onslaught of antags". That said, I definitely agree that no more antags should be added if shuttle is incoming, as this will just lead to rushed action by the antags.

Well, then those holes should probs be filled instead.

Well, the PR didnt actually change the amount of rigs (in the latest revision) but still had the old changelog. So I´ll bin that.

Well yes, but the pr is not significantly different. The paramedic changes have been suggested by the op. The janitor changes have been suggested by someone in reply to the op.

When implementing a pr not only the op is relevant but also the feedback provided in the topic. As I agree with the people that mentioned (in response to the op) that access creep is not a good idea I implemented the PR the way it is. The PR does not attempt to hide anything that it does and shows clearly what it will do and anyone clicking on the PR (or just looking at the rich link embed that should show the pr title) will see what it is doing. As shown by the discussion regarding the janitor access removal in the topic, quite a few people managed to click on that link. To reiterate: - I created a PR taking feedback from the suggestion and my personal opinion into account. - I linked the PR in the feedback topic so anyone who is interested in the paramedic changes can easily see it without checking github. - I linked the feedback topic on github, so feedback can easily be provided (which people are doing. So what exactly is staff complaint worthy about that?