Arrow768

I figure this should have been archived a while ago. But lets do it now: Trial passed.

During the "Thunder in the Orchard"-event of the "Dreary Futures II"-story a number of characters have died and in accordance with the rule regarding canon events (quoted below) some players have requested to retcon the death of their characters. First of all, I would like to point out that it is our established policy to not retcon deaths in canon events where the player of the character had a large influence in the death of the character. ("Play stupid games, win stupid prices") With that said, I would like to point out the following facts which influenced our decision in that matter: The players were asked to volunteer in a boarding mission against pirates/terrorists. The players had the capability to check if command has made precautions in case the boarding went sideways (Medical on the shuttle, ...) and back out if needed. A event volunteer has acted against the intentions of the lore writer of the event due to insufficient information provided to them. We have discussed each request for a retcon at length and came to the following conclusion: Out of four players who have petitioned for a retcon of their characters death one retcon has been granted. The death of the character in question was directly caused by the actions of the event volunteer. As such we believe that a retcon is warranted as their death happened to a large extend due to circumstances out of their control.

While I appreciate the application, I unfortunately can not accept the application due to a lack of demonstrated capability and commitment. Generally the expectation to join the development team is: A demonstrated capability to create somewhat complex PRs A certain level of activity (on github). We have made the experience that promises of future activity often do not result in actual activity. If you are looking for projects/ideas I recommend to talk to one of the maintainers.

Moved to policy suggestions as thats not something (primarily) code related

This has been polled from 2022-11-01 to 2022-11-14. As the option to merge the two jobs did not gain a sufficient majority and the maintainers did not believe it would be beneficial to merge it regardless, the PR will be closed and the topic archived in the coming days (33 - I dont care; 95 - Merge; 108 Dont Merge)

It is now possible to use reactions on the forums. Currently there are only a few available. That might be expanded in the future.

The question if borgs should be removed has been polled from 2022-11-01 00:00:00 to 2022-11-14 00:00:00 and discussed by the maintainers. As the option to remove the borgs did not gain a sufficient majority the PR will be closed. (25 abstain, 82 for removal, 136 against) Given the nature of this thread, I expect that there will be follow-up PRs that will attempt to severely limit/partially remove the borgs. It is very likely that such PRs will be closed without much deliberation. I encourage the people who posted in this topic to participate to this discussion. If it is possible to reach a consensus on how the borgs can be improved, then it is likely that a PR implementing these changes will be merged.

People said what needed to be said. This will be locked until the poll is over and the maintainers discussed it.

Please follow the staff complaint format.

Trial started

Seconding the vote for dismissal. We already have issues with backseat command in the form of off-duty crew. Adding the role would just formalise that.

I will close this within 48 hours unless there are any further concerns that have not been addressed or questions about the resolution.

Alright, to bring this to a resolution. The lore masters have been required to establish a procedure for warnings so it is clear in the future what is and is not a warning. This has already happened. (Currently in the form of a internal topic; The lore procedure page on the wiki will be updated soonish) The whitelist strip is being maintained. I concur with the synth team and caelphon that the skirt-incident has portrayed behaviour that we do not want. You may use the relay to resolve events that have been interrupted by the whitelist strip. This has to happen in a timely manner. The established server rules on the relay have to be respected. The re-application period of 2 months is being removed. The lore team procedures currently only require a wait time for whitelist applications that have been denied (and not removals). Given that Lancer did not specify a wait time in the whitelist strip, I do not see the need to apply one now. This means that you could reapply instantly. The synth team will have to make a reasonable effort to work with you and establish requirements that you should fulfill before re-applying. You should contact lancer regarding this after this complaint has been resolved.

See if it works now

Sorry, it took me a while to get back to that complaint. I had to handle some obligations outside of SS13. In the meanwhile I have checked the relevant logs to establish a timeline of the events. (Times: UTC+1) 2022-07-09 12:29.13: Character CSSU 32 Created & First Played 2022-07-15 12:29.13: Character CSSU 32 Last Played 2022-07-17 21:06:38: Character CSSU 33 Created & First Played 2022-08-02 07:34:27: "Skirt-Incident" 2022-08-10 20:05:59: Character CSSU 32 Deleted 2022-08-13 10:28:42: Removal of the whitelist 2022-08-13: Informed about the whitelist removal via discord by Lancer 2022-08-13: Staff Complaint against Lancer opened 2022-08-14: Staff Complaint against Lancer resolved 2022-08-15: Staff Complaint against Lancer and Caelphon opened Regarding your list of questions. 1. What took the SLT so long to tell me that the issue was a sex-bot cliché, and why did you have to tell me? They have told you that the sexual nature of your behaviour was unacceptable. (In the discord messages immediately following the whitelist strip) You have received sufficient information by them to avoid this behaviour in the future. I only provided some historical context why there is a strong stance against sexualized behaviour (from ipc players), that is not strictly necessary. 2. Why didn't the SLT inform me that they thought I was playing into this cliché and give me a chance to explain myself? They have determined that the incident in the screenshot is behaviour unbecoming of a IPC whitelist holder and decided to remove the whitelist as a result. The lore teams can remove whitelists on the first offense if they deem a incident severe enough. 3. What took the SLT so long since the incident, almost two weeks ago now, to bring it up? Was it reported afterwards? According to the timeline I have established, it took 11 days to look into that. In my opinion this is not a major issue, as it can take some time to properly investigate a incident, discuss it with the rest of the team and come to a decision. If the whitelist removal would have happened months after the incident, I would concur with you that this took too long, but in this case I think the timeframe is reasonable. 4. Just who reported this? Why did they wait this long, or why did the team wait this long? We never inform the person on the end of any administrative action who has ahelped them, as this can easily lead to harassment of the reporter. The same thing applies to lore complaints. If the lore team is supplied with information of unwanted behaviour, they investigate it and if needed apply corrective actions. But they never inform the person on the receiving end of corrective actions who reported it to them.

Given that a pr for the exit functionality exists and two votes for the general access exist I am moving this to the archive.

Voting for dismissal on the front door access for security.

I would appreciate it, if you keep your replies concise and to the point. Having to comb through essays is not conductive to a efficient resolution of this staff complaint. Regarding your intentions. The matter of intention vs effect has already been explained by caelphon (and to some extend by myself). While your intention might not have been to engage in behavior unbecoming of a IPC whitelist holder, the effect of your actions was that you did. Regarding the unwillingness to discuss this issue via DM. When you choose to open the staff complaint you choose to try and resolve this matter on the forum in the form of a staff complaint. I have personally made the experience that if you communicate with someone that has a (staff-)complaint open, there is a possibility that they will (un-)intentionally misinterpret anything you tell them via DM and then try to "use" that on the (staff) complaint. For the people handling the complaint verifying any "they said via DM" claims makes it more difficult to resolve the (staff-)complaint. This is why I personally refuse to communicate with anyone that has a staff complaint open regarding the matter of that staff complaint via DM. It is also why I fully understand (and support) the decision of the relevant staff members to not communicate with you via DM until the relevant complaints are resolved. Regarding the ooc aspect. It would not have mattered if you had been noted/warned/banned for the incident in the screenshot. The lore team does not have to, is not expected to (and in most cases cant due to a lack of access) take warnings/bans into account when deciding if they should remove a whitelist or not. Getting a warning/ban for this incident would not have made a difference. I am still in the process of establishing a timeline and checking some logs. Once I have done that I should have answers to the list of questions/mistakes you have mentioned above.

It is important to understand, that certain behaviour might not be against our ooc rules, while still violating the expectations put in place for whitelist holders. Your stripper-incident is definitely toeing the line towards being a ooc issue, but it was determined by administration that it will not be pursued as a ooc issue. Even if a specific incident is handled by administration, it does not prohibit a whitelist removal. See the head of staff / AI whitelists where we automatically remove them in case of any ooc punishment. (So even if the mods/admins had decided to apply a warning/ban a whitelist strip would still be "on the table"). For the species whitelists such a removal is under the purview of the relevant lore teams and can be performed if they think that the relevant conduct is in violation of the whitelist. Which is the case for the stripper incident, as it directly portrays behaviour that we do not want in IPCs due to the obvious sex-bot cliché. (This is where it becomes a "quality of the roleplay" issue) We have had issues in the past with synthetic players (IPC and borg) who have skirted the line towards the "sex bot" cliche and therefore have a relatively hard stance when it comes to behavior that skirts the line towards portraying a sex bot. While it might not have been your intention to portray a sex bot, the following screenshot demonstrates that more than one person thought that you were going in that direction. You have also continued the "joke" in LOOC instead of distancing yourself from it. The synthetic lore team has the capability to determine what is and is not acceptable role play for IPCs. They have determined that this incident is unacceptable roleplay for a IPC and sufficient to strip the whitelist without prior warning.

To make sure there are no wrong expectations from the start: Any further staff complaints about this issue will be closed immediately. I will look into it and get back to you once I have gathered some information.

Voting for dismissal. If the memory loss is removed the victims will immediately blab to security which would force the vampire to kill them. That just turns vamp into a changeling re-skin.

Complaint closed without further action as requested by the OP

Personally I do not see the need for a spawn timer in this case. The number of golems is limited by the number of raw materials available. Regarding: "letting other people have a chance at controlling a golem" - From what I saw there were additional golem spawns available that could have been used by anyone present.

Moved to policy suggestions as you want to change a standing policy. We used to have ai/borg laws that were similar to asimov. It resulted in the borgs attacking any non-human antag and generally interfering with the antags (playing bullet sponge, rushing into hostage situations to pull out hostages, attacking changelings, ...) Given all the problems we had with that lawset and law priorities that value the life of the crew above the borg, I am opposed to returning to that lawset / law priorities. I have no interest in returning to a situation where borgs are again allowed (and required by their laws) to rush into situation and try to meddle with the antags. I am voting for dismissal unless you can come up with a lawset that accounts for these issues and explain why it is a better option than the current lawset.

No it is not correct. The different roles/responsibilities will be explained in the upcoming document. Until that’s finished the important takeaway is to contact the maintainers if you have an issue with something on GitHub. (That goes for anyone who interacts with our public repo) Given that no additional points about weezys conduct have been raised (which this staff complaint is about) I will close this staff complaint.