Arrow768

Moving this to ban request, since that is what this is:

Fill out the following application form. You may use arabic numerals to convey expressions of values. Formality is not required. The application is heavily focused on most of the questions which may be thought of as “Short-Response Questions.” It is highly recommended that you expound most on these questions. Additionally, the final segment, “Anything Else You Want to Add,” is a place for you to shine your brightest. It is an area where you can write anything about anything: you can write your own mini-application there, you can mention what a great player you are in-game, you can give your perspective on life. This is a place for you to shine; now blind us with your light! Please ensure that you do not include anything in brackets. Server Moderator Application [b][u]Basic Information[/u][/b] [b]Byond Account:[/b] [b]Character Name(s):[/b] [b]AI Name(s):[/b] [b]Discord username + tag:[/b] (Specify your discord username and tag [Example#0001]. Contact details can be requested/provided over a more secure channel, such as PMs. Delete this comment when making the application, and replace with the answer only.) [b]Age:[/b] [b]Timezone:[/b] [b]When are you on Aurora?:[/b] [b][u]Experience[/u][/b] [b]How long have you played SS13?:[/b] [b]How long have you played on Aurora:[/b] [b]How much do you know about SS13 (Baystation build) game mechanics?:[/b] [b]Do you have any experience moderating for an SS13 server?:[/b] [b]Have you read through the criteria thread; https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4198 - and believe that you mark off all the criteria?:[/b] [b]Have you ever been banned, and if so, how long and why?:[/b] [b][u]Personality[/u][/b] [b]Why do you play SS13?:[/b] [b]Why do you play on Aurora?:[/b] [b]What do moderators do?:[/b] [b]What does it mean to be a moderator for our server?:[/b] [b]Why do you want to be a moderator?:[/b] [b]What qualities do you possess that would make you a good moderator?:[/b] [b]How well do you handle stress, anger, or insults?:[/b] [b]Anything Else You Want to Add:[/b] (Do not put words here) (Put words here) If you're applying for this position, please select the Server Moderator prefix when posting your application topic.

Please copy over the following format and fill it out to apply for an Alien whitelist. All whitelists need to be reviewed and approved by a member of the Staff. If your application doesn't get approved, you may need to rework it, or re-apply. Applications must sit for a minimum of 24 hours before any decision can be reached, and typically a decision is reached by a lore developer of the race within 2 - 3 days. If your application sits for longer than 3 days without official comment or decisions please PM the lore team administrators, Triogenix or La Villa Strangiato, with a link to your application. Some species should meet specific criteria in their application, to ensure the applicant is able to best show off their writing ability and character development. Skrell applicants must create a Skrell from the Nralakk Federation. They do not have to be supporters of the Federation. Vaurca applicants must avoid using a Viax as their application character. Unathi applicants must choose a religion for their Unathi to adhere to. Tajara applicants must create a Tajara who is factionally aligned with one of the three nations. IPC applicants must show an understanding of how IPCs interact with wider society depending on if they are owned or free. They must also have a significant event in their backstory that may influence how they view ownership. Dionae applicants must create a gestalt born on a planet or within a society. BYOND Ckey: (Your BYOND ckey) Discord username: (Your Discord username) Character names: (Names of the characters you play most commonly) Species you are applying to play: (The species name) ------------------------------ General Whitelist Requirements What colour do you plan on making your first alien character?: (IPCs exempt) Have you read the lore pages for the species you wish to be whitelisted for?: Please provide well articulated answers to the following questions in a paragraph format. One paragraph minimum per question. Why do you wish to play this species?: What makes role-playing this species different than role-playing a human?: ------------------------------ Character Application Character Name: Write a backstory for your character. This may include their origin, education, personality and how they arrived to the SCCV Horizon. (2 paragraphs minimum) How has the recent events of the Orion Spur impacted your character? Events such as the Phoron Scarcity, the Solarian Collapse or even the Invasions of Biesel for interstellar-wide affairs, while region-specific events such as the Peacekeeper Mandate, The Titan Rises or even Cold Dawn may impact your character. (1 paragraph minimum) How does your character view the megacorporation they work for? (1 paragraph minimum)

I believe @ferner (who did the amazing viro lab setup) is already working on a medical update that will consolidate a few areas.

Application retracted by applicant

Application accepted. moving to the archive

Just a heads up for the future. Even if no admins are online, please ahelp issues like that. The mods/mins are automatically pinged about ahelps if there is currently no active admin on the server.

The command whitelist has a trial period, yes. But that is for the command whitelist. The playtime requirement is questionable and not really enforced as there is currently no way to track the play time. All it needs are some people to say "Yes I know that person" and sometimes even that is not needed. So the barrier for a written whitelist is low. Its even lower for species whitelists where there is no trial period. Backtracking is indeed the biggest issue and there are only two real options to solve it: Leave the system in "tracking" mode for a while to record the play time without enforcing the whitelists and then enable the whitelist system after x weeks/months This would allow every person on the server a equal opportunity to gain the required playtime in the required roles. Add the basic requirement to everyone who had an account before a certain time. This would allow every current player to play all the roles, but it does not take the activity of the players into account. It might be possible to combine those two to estimate the time played based on the tracked rounds and add this once as a starting value.

Yes, I read the entire post. But as per our one suggestion per topic rule I treated this as a all-or-nothing thing. Some other things that are problematic: As mentioned by Zelm, I do not see the need for that as there is no issue with being short and to the point. In addition we already have that in place: "The reasoning behind a suggestion should be elaborated upon in the initial post to a reasonable extent." That cant be a hard requirement as there are some situations where it is not applicable to make a suggestion what to replace it with. If more information is needed to understand the scope of a suggestion, that information can always be requested in the course of the suggestion. Indeed, but I also do not see an issue if someone sais they do not like something or like something, as long as they provide additional reasoning regarding it, which again ties into the following rule: "The reasoning behind a suggestion should be elaborated upon in the initial post to a reasonable extent." With new additions it is often not possible to argue from a purely objective standpoint as there is insufficient data without actually trying something out (that is where testmerges and playtesting come in) This is already unacceptable and should be reported if seen.

Voting for dismissal as this is impossible to enforce as "event that made everyone mad" is too subjective

One option that I believe has not been sufficiently explored is a time based whitelist. Our current system for time-locking certain roles is rather crude and based on the time you first joined the server. I would prefer to see this system updated to track the time played in certain jobs/roles. Once we have the ability to check for a playtime requirement in certain roles, it would be relatively easy to set up a play time requirement for the AI (i.e. needs to play cyborg for x rounds / x hours) I believe that this would be the better option than a application based whitelist, as this tool can be used to ensure that a player has actually played in various roles and should have acquired some knowledge in those roles (the playtime requirement could be extended to require x hours in y departments) However neither a application based whitelist or a time based whitelist actually ensure that a player is well versed in the game mechanics and can role play "properly". In case of a application based whitelist, all it does is ensure that the player can follow and fill in a form on the forums. A time based whitelist only ensures that they played for a certain while, but it doesn't directly say anything about their ability to role play. (It ensures a certain quantity, but not quality; But I would say that it is relatively hard to get a certain quantity of playtime in various roles without the ability to maintain some kind of standard)

Yeah, I have to concur with that

No response from the OP, therefore considering this resolved and moving it to the archive

No response within 48h, therefore closing it

I have to concur with some of the things already said. It is important to draw a balance between making the job boring and making it too difficult by adding a large number of needed steps. One way to solve this issue would be to provide a certain number of pre-made items. (For example at my local pizzeria they prepare the dough in advance so when a customer orders a pizza they dont have to mix up the dough, but just take the dough, flatten it, add the ingredients and bake it.) Similar options could be provided for other food items (such as burger buns that need to be toasted, ...) One thing that I would love to see is a slight adaptation to the way stuff is served: Instead of the food magically coming out on a plate, you actually have to take a plate and place the food on it. If the food has been on the plate for a while, the plate becomes dirty and has to be washed. Something similar should ideally apply to the drinks; If you have a drink in a glass and empty the glass, you get a dirty glass Bonus points if you apply a similar system to forks, spoons, knifes, ... Dirty dishes can then be placed in a dishwasher to clean them.

The Discord Bot has been fixed so strikes are logged properly and it can be used regularly again A report feature is being added to the discord bot which will allow users to report problematic messages to the staff members online who will then look into that. We are moving more towards automated systems (warning points lead to kicks/bans/other appropriate actions for the platform) and away from manually applying punishments. The topic (I mentioned in my previous post) with additional clarifications regarding the rules is being worked on. Further changes might be implemented as a result of that

There is a bit of a difference between dismantling a window (which is not supposed to be easily dismantled) and a hatch which is supposed to be opened and closed. If opening maint hatches without access restrictions is equivalent to "physically breaking into a department with tools", then people can already do that, by dismantling the walls that lead into maint. If people want to do shady dealings in maint, then they already have the option to do so. The airlocks leading into maint, that are directly adjacent to the departments can be accessed with the departmental access.

As I explained above: The maintainers (who have the ability to merge things in) look through every PR and evaluate if this PR can be merged as is or needs further discussion. Two reviews on GitHub do not guarantee that a PR will be merged. (The current example would be 5975 and 5996) While the PRs are technically fine, require additional consideration and have not been merged yet. There are two extremes here: Developers have a responsibility to address feedback, in any form. Developers do not have to account for feedback at all. Both of these extremes are unacceptable. If we were ok with the latter, then why would we even bother to create feedback topics? Regarding the question of "what prevents them from doing so". Quite simple: The maintainers. If valid feedback is insufficiently addressed for a merge, then it wont be merged. (Again this is by far no requirement to address every single point raised, but the general direction of the points should be addressed) Also, this entire staff complaint started over a PR that will be testmerged meaning it will be gone after a week or two after which additional feedback is gathered to evaluate weather this PR is suitable as is, unsuitable or needs further changes to be suitable. The entire purpose of a testmerge is to evaluate how a PR fares in a live envrionment, so I do not see an issue at all if there are people questioning weather or not a PR is going to do fine or not if its merged. The purpose of the testmerge is to find out just that.

The average crew member has no business being in a maintenence tunnel. If you remove the IC restriction then administration would have to oocly enforce that and that would result in quite a bit of a workload if people got bwoinked and asked what business they had for being in a maint tunnel.

Not a fan since that would pretty much remove the access restrictions from maint. Anyone could enter or exit maint tunnels without any real effort involved and that is not something that should be done.

The thing I hate about these discord complaints is that there is always quite a lot of context missing. Anyway, to address some of the questions / concerns raised: Do developers have a responsibility to address feedback, in any form, regarding their developments? No, they do not, especially not "in any form". Developers have the responsibility to provide a feedback topic to facilitate a discussion about a PR if a PR is marked as feedback required. But they do not have to actively respond to every comment raised in that Topic (or elsewhere). The reason we do not have that requirement is quite simple: The developers can not merge PRs on their own. It requires two reviews and a maintainer to merge a PR into the master branch. Before a PR is merged, the provided feedback is taken into account. (This is also the reason why the Security PR will be testmerged with another feedback round after the testmerge) He does not respond to my feedback / is ignoring me. As LordFowl mentioned, there is a difference between ignoring and not responding. I have absolutely no interest to force two people to work with each other if they do not want to. And yes, there are also some people I avoid interacting with, because I believe they are generally a unpleasant experience to interact with. However that does not stop me from listening to valid complaints raised by them and addressing that feedback if I believe they need to.

Regarding Vague Rules: As mentioned in this topic, it is impossible for us to make a list of everything that we think should be punished. Otherwise we would would end up with a never ending list of rules and people wouldn't bother to read them all. We are currently looking into ways to expand and elaborate a bit more on certain rules that can easily be misinterpreted. For example from time to time there is a bit of confusion about what a synthetic is allowed to do or not do. The "example" section could provide some examples and guidelines. (The same would apply for rule 0 aswell) However even this wont be a complete list of "things not to do" and it will not be possible to provide a comprehensive list. Regarding a Public list of all warnings and bans handed out: This has been discussed with the administration and the issues of it outweigh the benefits. A public list of warnings / notes is quite similar to a pillory and we believe that this is not something that contributes to a healthy environment. Warnings / bans would have to be more vague than they are at the moment to protect the identify of the person that has been warned. (Again to avoid the pillory effect) Which would make consistent enforcement more difficult as modmins that look at the notes/warnings might not find sufficient information in them to properly judge a situation. Therefore I also consider this complaint resolved unless further issues are raised in the next 24h.

Since this sat quite a while by now, I came to the following conclusion: The cause for the staff complaint was the believe that LordFowl used this PR in a malicious manner as part of a personal vendetta. With the information and timeline provided by LordFowl, Senapi Jackboot agreed that the PR was not made in a malicious manner. Another issue raised was the moderation of comments in the feedback thread. I do not see an issue with the hidden comments, as developers explicitly have moderation permission in the suggestions forum to moderate Feedback Topics. I checked the comments that were hidden by LordFowl in the "Wage Gap" feedback topic and found that all comments made were either off topic or not contributing to the Topic at all. Therefore if no further issues are raised by the involved parties this will be closed in 24 hours.

We (headmins/headdevs) are already taking steps to reduce the friction between different section of the staff team and improve the interactions between the different teams. I will close and lock this in 24h unless there is anything else.

I split that up into a separate player complaint, because this is how they play a certain character and now how they carry out their duties as a staff member. If you could add the player complaint header @BurgerBB