Arrow768

Voting for dismissal for that reason.

Seconding the vote for dismissal for the above stated reason. And moving it to the rejected policy forum.

The person handling the complaint already has the capability to ask people to keep their posts shower and to the point. Voting for dismissal

Moved to the rejected policy suggestion forum following two votes for dismissal.

This is still on the “implement it eventually list”

Voting for dismissal due to the reasons provided by Garn.

Voting for dismissal. as mentioned above, just use neglect of duty

Voting for dismissal. Just because someone knows how to pilot a small purpose built craft does not mean that they have any idea on how to pilot something much larger. (If you would like a real life example, compare a Cessna cockpit to that of a Learjet or even a Boeing)

As you have not explained what code (or even policy) suggestions you have this is being moved to the general section of the forum.

This topic has been up for 7 days and received two votes for dismissal. According to the forum rules this topic will be closed as “rejected”. Given that this should have been a policy suggestion it’s moved to the policy suggestion archive. In addition I would like to point out that the machinists are expected to Borg people unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is most definitely part of their job description.

Given that you posted this in the suggestions forum for (code) suggestions and said that this is not a policy suggestion, I’d like to inquire what changes to our code base you are suggesting.

Voting for dismissal. I don't see a major issue with borgification. There are not a lot of cases when you can borg someone according to the regs. (Attempted-)Murder Mutiny Terrorist Acts Espionage Escaping from a HuT sentence. And even then borgification shouldn't be the first step in most cases. As mentioned by @ramke: if you notice that command is pushing hard for a borgification when that might not be reasonable you can (and should) ahelp.

Can you explain how that's actually done?

Thats where the final part of my post about updating the wiki/game to make it clear that those are temporary learner roles comes into play. (So they are informed of that early if they read the messages/the wiki; which is generally recommended and often required before you play a specific role)

There are imho two distinct issues that need to be addressed separately: "minimum age" and "people hogging the apprentice roles" From an OOC perspective the (Engineering-)Apprentice Roles are meant to be learner roles to get some knowledge about the actual game mechanics. With that in mind, it becomes a OOC issue if players are playing in these roles for months on time as they are blocking the slot from people who actually need to use them. So this should primarily be ahelped. (Admins have the ability to look up how many rounds were played by a certain character and in what role they played as) I do not see why the reduced minimum age is an issue. It is quite common in various countries that younger people work at companies as interns and/or apprentices. (To quote a example from wikipedia: 40% of all teenagers above 15 years enter a apprenticeship in Austria.) We already have a well established policy that players need to create different characters for different roles (even in the same department). We also allow people to "age-hop" their characters. Given that I do not see why it is an issue to either age-hop a character to the required age (when the player has gained the necessary mechanical knowledge to play a more advanced role) or to just create a new character. However, it might be required to more clearly point out in the game that the apprentice roles are meant as a (very) temporary learner role and not meant to be played as persistent characters.

That topic has been on my todo list for quite a while. I just haven’t found the time to sit down and write a proper post about the outcome of the poll and the planned changes as a result. I should be able to find the time to do that next weekend

Unban accepted.

I think the idea that throw range and throw damage are different "modifiers" might be flawed. The distance something can be thrown at depends on the starting velocity of the object and the angle it is thrown at (as well as the starting height). The "damage" the same object does depends on the velocity of it, when it hits the target. Is there something I haven't considered?

Addendum: The ban reason has been updated from: to the following to ensure it aligns with the provided Screenshots (H I L T E R)

I am going to chime in here as Host of this server. There is no point in continuing this staff complaint. I completely agree with and support the decisions of all the involved staff members to ban you and silent.mouse. If you decide to involve yourself in a situation you should inform yourself what the things, they have on their profile (that they were banned for) actually mean, before claiming that "these German words are all gobbledygoop to me". If you google "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!" together with "meaning", one of the first results is from the "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". Let me quote the explanation from there: After you defended a person with the central slogan used by the Nazi Party on their profile you proceeded to ask if you could play as "Adolf Hitler". I dont really care if you learn something from that or not, but the result is that you are no longer welcome here. We do not need or want people in our community who defend/support the Holocaust. (Even if we ignore the fact that doing so can get you between 1-10 years in prison if you live in Austria; Verbotsgesetz $3h)

Sorry for the delay, didnt see that until now. See if you can reconnect now.

There will be some info regarding the outcome of the poll / this discussion soonish.

Seconding the vote for dismissal by garn. I fail to see the problem. Command Players have already demonstrated the capability to read lore and understand it (in their application) If someone is inactive it is a relatively small investment to read up on the lore. (Compared to that reapplying for the whitelist is a very large effort)

No response has been posted until now, therefore I am closing and archiving this complaint. As you were unable to demonstrate that the circumstances of your characters death were fundamentally out of your control or that the death could not be reasonably expected, the previous ruling about not granting a retcon is being upheld.

Sure. I´ll close it saturday evening (UTC) if you dont reply until then.