Arrow768

I am against a strip of command whitelists that is not covered by our existing rules. The main argument for a strip is that command players who have not played in a year will not familiarize them with the changed mechanics, rules and lore. I do not believe that this warrants a strip as all of them have already shown the capability to write a backstroy that is in line with the lore and familiarize themselves with existing mechanics. (They had to learn those from somewhere aswell) It it my believe that the majority of command players will familiarize themselves with the changed aspects of the game before they play a command role. Those that do not, can be dealt with administrative actions. A accelerated whitelist process (where former whitelistees only have to do the trial) is imho not contributing to resolve this issue, as anything that should get a trial denied should also result in a whitelist strip. Instead I suggest to enforce the existing rules and strip the whitelists of those that have not linked their forum account to their byond account (as required by the existing whitelist rules).

I do not remember things like that in the recent history. That said, if something like that happens it is a very quick way to a perma ban

And I have moved it back since I misread the initial post and the suggestion is not to change the procedure, but to just update the Template-Post in the IR Forum

I do have to clarify something here. If you lie on your IR to get another person in trouble and it is discovered through logs that you have lied, that becomes a OOC matter. Other than that CCIA can only issue IC actions. I have moved this policy suggestion to the archive as it is already implemented and nothing new is suggested.

The forum system offers the capability to create "clubs" so people can create their own special interest groups. One of the Clubs that exists is the "Aurora Lore Club". Since the Club claims to be "A club dedicated to the lore developments of Aurora, and talking about them!" and is headed by the current lore master I figure that is the best place to ask your questions/discuss lore in a more "focused" manner than on discord.

Afaik we never had the capability to go for an entire round on the current map purely on SMES/APC charge without a powersource being set up. Therefore I would be interested in the source that you based this claim on.

The thing with bolting is that it was very “cheap” to use and had no consequence if someone forced their way through. The difference with that ability is that if someone needs to force their way through it can have severe consequences for the Vaurca. If it is made clear (icly and occly) that you can use whatever force is required to discourage a ta from continuing to use a blocking ability then I don’t see too much of an issue with it. (And yes, that includes beating it with a Batton until it either moves or dies)

As Headdev I am not too concerned about that as there are checks in place for every role that @Alberyk would hold (even if Caelphon were to retire). My primary concern however is time. With 4 major roles (Head Admin, Maintainer, (Deputy) Lore Master and Tajara Lore Writer) there are quite a few things that need to be taken care of and I am unsure if that is not too much to ask of one person. I am concerned that this is a quick road to be overtaxed by the various tasks, as the lore team has historically been one of the more difficult teams to manage.

Thats a easy +1 due to your past wiki contributions

That is already mentioned in the OP.

You have started playing again 4 days ago and previously you did not have the best reputation as indicated by the various responses in this topic. I would encourage you to stay for a while and show that you have improved your abilities before applying for head of staff.

Moved to the archive as requested by the author

If you want a IC explanation: Sector Administration requires that important communication is sent via fax for tracking and handling purposes. Think of it as a IT service desk with a e-mail address that you have to mail to get help. For an OOC explanation: We have two major usecases that require communication from the odin Z level to the station Z level: Response team "guidance" in the from of a ERT Commander Antags Listening to the things that happen on the station. Due to the way tcoms work at the moment it it not possible to restrict a relay to certain areas. In my opinion its too much work to implement a system that can handle all these different usecases. Therefore voting for dismissal

Moved to the archive.

If there is nothing else I’ll move this unban request to the archive within 24h

Even if I look at previous connections, the IP address is not static/dedicated. I do not believe that this "byond pager issue" you cited in your original message had any influence on your ban status, as the ban was placed because you were using a (VPN) IP address of a banned person. The whole "doxing using a IP" is imho a bit overblown as all decent ISPs have measures in place against that (especially due to the GDPR and similar laws outside of Europe) At this time I do not have sufficient information to be certain about your status as a ban evader. As the ban that had you linked is relatively old I have deactivated the mirror-ban on your account and placed a note to perma-ban you in case you show behavior that is similar to that of dascorncakes. If you connect again with the IP that originally caused the ban, you will be banned again automatically.

We have a policy that has been set in place by the lore masters and is part of the lore team "rules and regulations". Every member of the lore team has been made aware of these "rules and regulations" and is expected to follow them. Therefore any staff member who claims that a article outside of the archive is non-canon is not correct. As lore team members they have the option to perform a minor or major retcon depending on the scope of what they would like to retcon (by following the outlined procedures). But until such a time that this has happened and has been properly announced, the articles remain canon.

You can find our current policy for retcons here: https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Lore_Team_Rules_and_Regulations#HOW_TO_RETCON_NEWS_ARTICLES This specifically requires: If a article is not in the article archive it is considered canon. There is also a additional policy regarding major retcons: https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Lore_Team_Rules_and_Regulations#MAJOR_RETCONS

My concern here is that a ban generally does not come out of nowhere. In most cases it is escalated from note to warning and then finally to a day ban. Usually the things you are noted for also need to be related to each other. (So usually you arnt banned if you get noted for 3 different things) At that point you already had your 3 strikes. With that said, we expect our command (and AI players) to uphold a certain standard. If you get a ban, you need to screw up repeatedly and/or quite severely. At which point it is questionable if you are fit to hold the whitelist. At the end of the day getting a command whitelist is not difficult. Afaik that is run with a "easy to gain, easy to loose" attitude.

The point of the "syndicate" being so vague is that the antag players have the freedom to come up with their own stories / motivations without being constraint.

I have also moved this topic to policy suggestions as it isnt exactly a code problem but a policy change related to our whitelist procedure.

Voting for dismissal. Every part of the AI whitelist focuses specifically on the AI. Expanding it to drones, which are under a different lawset, is not within the scope of the AI whitelist.

Seconding the vote for dismissal for the above stated reason. After the NBT has arrived we will evaluate the role of security and possible look into alternatives to their force monopoly if the situation does not improve.

The statement about you using the same IP is not true as indicated by the connection data. We explicitly have a warning against using a VPN in our rules as ban-evaders tend to use a VPN connection to try and hide their "correct" IP. The problem there is that people who might not have done anything can get caught in these bans if they happen to be assigned a IP address of a ban evader. (With a VPN connection this is more likely than when using a "normal" residential connection) I would be interested in your security concerns which prompted you to opt for a VPN connection when playing online games.

Given that this is more a technical question weather you are a ban evader or not, I will take care of this appeal and resolve it hopefully in the next few days. With that said, why have you been using a VPN to connect to the server when we explicitly warn in our rules that something like that can happen when using a VPN?