Arrow768

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.

@greenjoe Unless there are any points which have not been addressed / You have additional questions I will close this in ~ 44h.

You used a VPN to connect to the server. According to our rules: "Use of proxy-servers can result in a ban or may not be supported. Due to the amount of griefers that use proxy servers in an attempt to bypass punishment, connecting via a dedicated proxy server, VPNs, or routing your connection through a dedicated server host, can result in an immediate permanent ban" I have lifted the ban this time. Dont use a VPN in the future.

The contributing guidelines require that a feature pr is up for two days and has two approving reviews. That has been met, hence there was no “speed merge”. A speed merge is when a PR is merged without those requirements being met. (Which can also happen for a number of reasons) Test merging requires that you have something that is generally “resistant” to merge conflicts. (I.e. it’s not likely to create merge conflicts if something else is merged). With code that is generally not a concern, but mapping changes (especially larger ones) are very bad in that regard.

As stated above, retcons are granted if the player died due to circumstances out of their control (and they could not reasonably expect to encounter those circumstances). The following points have influenced me to uphold the previous decision and not grant a retcon: It is relatively well established that Adhomai is not exactly "safe". This is further reinforced by the fact that you were handed weapons and that an archeologist went missing in the area. Given that there were quite a few ha'rron in the cave, I believe it likely that you came across dead ha'rron killed by another group at some point during your exploration. I was unable to establish how you prepared yourself/your party to explore an area where a person went missing. (I have attempted to contact you via discord, but you have not replied) The outcome suggests that the preparation (in terms of group size/makeup and equipment) was insufficient. In a video I acquired of another group (around 5 characters), that group was easily able to dispatch a number of Ha'rron they ran into (without using ranged weapons). After the first attack your character said: "She needs some medical trrreatment." and "That Ha';arrrrrron bit her a bit." You decided to proceed further into the cave after these statements and encountered the second Ha'rron ~2min after these statements. The presence of lag during rounds with high player count is well established and to be expected. From what I could see in the video, there was a lag spike around 30s before the second ha'rron attack. But I do not believe lag is an overriding factor in this case, as even with lag, a reasonably prepared group is able to easily defeat a Ha'rron.

Sorry for the delay. I am still checking a few things and should have something in the next days.

Just to make sure I got the details right: Char Name: "Rrhuyala Rrhakaslav'Karimi" Game ID: cms-cpQV Canon character deaths are usually only retconned if the character died due to circumstances out of the player's control. (i.e. was not aware of the danger and could not reasonably avoid it.) To my knowledge it has been relatively well established that Adhomai isn't too safe in the wilderness. The way it looks to me is that you ran into a hostile mob, got injured and decided to head further towards danger (into the caves; instead of returning to safety). Imho that does not qualify for "circumstances out of player control". With that said, I still have to check the logs / some other details.

I´ll handle that w/e you completed your post. As you are still in the process of writing your complaint, I am primarily interest in the chain of events that lead to the death of your character.

This topic has been discussed by @Alberyk, @Garnascus and me. We believe that it can be useful to allow players to view most of their notes. This will be part of a larger rework of the notes/warnings system, so there is no timetable on when this will be implemented. Quite a few details of this system still have to be decided, but there are a few key points already: Notes that have been created until the "new" system is merged will not be visible. This would require us to go through all the notes and classify them as "restricted" or not restricted. Which is not doable with a reasonable effort. The ability to make a staff complaint about notes will be restricted in some way. It will most likely be restricted to only make a staff complaint about notes that are factually incorrect. Details will be released once we are closer to a merge of the new implementation. There will most likely be the capability to add other notes aswell. i.e. Lore Specific notes to formalize the lore note/warning process.