Chada1

Please. Please. Please. I'm tired of this toxic atmosphere that has come to a head this week. I've literally considered leaving the Discord which would require me resigning or stepping down from Staff. End these never ending nightly ad hominem hatefests.

Well, should I explain how the majority of departments. (Security, Medical, Engineering) depend on conflict in one form or another to have a mechanical purpose? (And thus benefit even more from Antagonists than most other departments) Because, that's a thing. Extended by and large doesn't give them that conflict as it stands. Aurora FMPOV doesn't give these departments enough to really keep occupied outside of that ... that's part of the reason I believe Aurora can't stand alone without Antagonists at this current time, and what I'm hoping this solves, by making another vector of eventfulness/conflict (Conflict, again, just meaning narrative) Regardless, this shouldn't negatively impact your enjoyment of Extended, I'm just trying to put into words why many people explained to me that they don't like it as much, as well as my views.

I can't wait to implement each and every sprite onto the wiki. Thinking about it already makes me suffer giddy with excitement. +1! Can't wait for the agonies joys of this sprite rework. Furthermore, and jokes aside, I love your sprite style, Wezzy. Right on!

Then refer to this by Conspiir:

A hole is a situation in which there is one or two extremes and no middleground. You stand on the surface or you fall into the hole, and it's also hard to climb out of. It's a dichotomy. Antagonist-based conflict vs Crew-based conflict is the dichotomy that I'm referencing as a hole, and yes it is a hole. Antagonist-based conflict is conflict that originates by an Antagonists actions or roleplay, Crew-based conflict is conflict that originates by the Crews actions or roleplay. There is no middleground between these, either the Antag creates conflict or the Crew does. And that is narratively limiting. What I'd hope this suggestion solves is making it so that events are not the only time the Crew can interact with those outside of NanoTrasen and solving that narrative limitation. Being able to roleplay without external factors isn't the point and never was, but your roleplay won't be as capable of being the focal narrative of the round like Antagonists are, these won't be able to, either, but they'd be able to take the edge off of the same'y atmosphere of rounds without Antag involvement and contribute to an overall compelling narrative. (Also giving command and other Depts something to do, while at it). Skull pretty much hit the nail on the head with this. When people vote for extended a lot of them seem to want a calm atmosphere, where they can do whatever they want (Within their job and the rules) without worrying about Antagonists. This wouldn't complicate that at all, and that'd be because of the decision not to give them the license to kill that you seem opposed to. And yes, the bottom line is what the problem is, we Do need to spice things up in a roleplay-only mode. Especially if we want the game to stand alone without Antagonists and hold up as a compelling narrative experience. Conspiir hit the nail on the head with this.

Visitors couldn't spin the same narrative, but some people do that currently, too. Ideally, these 'Actors' would be given a role unique to them that isn't equivalent to Visitor. Having the same access as a visitor =/= Narratively equivalent to visitor, and even then the access is up in the air, too. I specifically said 'Ideas for roles that could be generated with this are cool', and honestly it could be anything -- Even a shuttle docking for whatever reason. Just a narrative that isn't intrinsically linked to Antagonists and is supported by but isn't intrinsically linked to Crew. Currently Aurora is stuck in a hole where if the conflict/narrative doesn't come from Antags, it comes from the Crew. There is no middleground between that. An outside factor really could spice things up and fill that void, and that'd make extended and other low-Antag round types a lot more fun.

Currently, we have afew consistent factors of conflict. Round-based: Especially through Antagonists, usually the focal point of the entire round, they cannot be depended on to drive roleplay independently, they require a mix of freeform character-driven conflict to work most of the time, as well as a mix of mechanical. Freeform: This is character-driven conflict, generally created via characterization and reaction to events, especially through interaction with other characters or situations in their job. Mechanical: Conflict arising through a Character simply doing their job or a character not doing their job. Carp break ins, Slime outbreaks, Power failures, random events causing malfunctions. Of numbers 1-3, only 2 (#2, #3) have a presence in every round type, as we know, Extended exists -- And it removes that factor of conflict, and instead places an emphasis on character driven conflict (#2) to hold the round up, as well as a mix of mechanical. Some players were arguing on Discord, not too long ago, that Aurora really needs to be a compelling roleplay experience without Antagonists at all, so what I suggest is a mixed stimulus to factors #2-#3 that'd persist between every gamemode so long as players were present to join. That was a long-winded way to build up to the explanation of Actors. Actors are characters, similar to the Merchant role, who are not part of the Aurora Crew, but find themselves placed into the round through varying means, especially through Random Event. They, like Antagonists, would exist to roleplay with the Crew, and deliver a compelling narrative, but with much more reduced expectation of Antaggery. The merchant itself almost falls into this, as do the CCIAA, if they were to visit for more than just interviews. The implementation wouldn't be difficult from a code perspective, I don't think. An event would fire, alerting ghosts to click a 'Join as Actor' button, not unlike the current emergency responder one. This would then spawn them and up to 3 others in an area to play out a role as whatever they choose to be. Lost miners, activist trespassers who want to protest NanoTrasen, any number of possibilities would work. However, whatever they spawn as, they shouldn't be given the same blank check as Antagonists, and they should only have expired visitor IDs for access. The conditions of where they should spawn are up in the air, but I'd say it could vary, too, as well as their equipment. I think this'd make Extended and the game in general a lot more compelling to have random factors like this present in rounds, I think the Merchant was a step in the right direction, but that we still need more freeform, character-driven, random factors to help drive a compelling, non-same'y narrative. I think this'd serve to replace the current never firing 'Random Antagonist' event in a way much more conducive to HRP. As a Final -- the main, final hurdle is to figure out what roles we would place these actors in, or whether to assign roles at all or leave it purely up to gimmick, or to make vague assignments for them. What roles could you see them in?

Let Kyres have this, please. Between him and Moondancer, it's hard, but while I'm sure Moon would do a fantastic job, too, I'm throwing my hat in for Kyres. +1

Please.........

I definitely support this wholeheartedly. Let us (Aurora) diverge a bit more in our art direction, by swapping out the antiquated Carp/Shark sprites. Let's make them a lot scarier with new names and more consistent!

The master becomes the student as they say. I'm a fan of much of Zundies work and I think they'd make a great Deputy. Sooo... +1. They were great to work with on the wiki.

This was a pretty easy decision to make -- VTC has worked on the Lore team for a short time, but has shown themselves to be decently dependable, and so I'm not very worried about adding them to the wiki team. Ontop of this, their activity gives me no reason to think they'll have second doubts or drop out without informing me. Application accepted.

This is pretty unique, though I haven't seen the 'borg in action, this kind of creativity is reaaaaaally refreshing and I think it'd reflect the variance in setting of 'Borgs p. neatly, one thing I'd warn you about Drago is that you may not always be able to go as a Service 'borg, I'd recommend you make a medical/security/Engineering alternate sprite as well as what Schev suggested -- Or anything else that you can think of. Other than that, +1!

I wouldn't mind so long as it was only Station mobs (Monkeys, pets, especially B.O.B., Naera, Walking Mushrooms, Beepsky, maybe Cave Dwellers). Basically things that can't destroy the Station but can add a little spice to the round.

This is the problem with your reply -- I was outlying my perspective on you and Schevs conduct and instead of contesting my actual point you nitpicked and tried to call me biased, no amount of explaining myself to you worked because you're stuck on seeing me as a liar for no reason (When have I even lied in the past anyway?). You literally didn't even read the rest of my initial post past the first two bulletpoints as far as I know, as you didn't even contest the rest of it. Why not next time focus on the actual point a person is making instead of nitpicking on word choice, accusing someone of bias, accusing someone of lying, accusing someone of not contributing anything despite not even engaging in their point at all. At best that's willfully disrespectful and in bad faith, at worst it's intentionally provocative.This is basically you saying you didn't like my word choice so you didn't consider my input after trying to invalidate it by 'Why are you even posting here.' more than multiple times. I can spoiler some quotations. The problem with these is they add nothing to the conversation and are the main reason it derailed. You focused on subtly insulting me and trying to assume I was malicious or something, which is very Ad Hominem-like, instead of my reasons for agreeing with Garnascus deal. Again, at best uncaringly disrespectful, at worst intentionally provocative. I even did a search on Discord and I couldn't even find the 'Hot takes' you spoke of. Learn from this. Stop doing it. I did say that, but that was before you tried to invalidate my input with (accidentally) false information. We'll end it here then. And no I won't be taking this up in a player complaint unless you start doing it again and you've stopped doing it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a problem when Garnascus struck his deal and included you in it. It was, and that is what makes my input relevant here.

Okay so if you know what I'm saying is correct why are you trying to assert bias on me as if what I'm saying is incorrect? Why not just Agree with that part of my post and move on to my reasons for thinking Garns deal is justified? My post does contribute something because I'm an involved party sharing my perspective. Why are you trying to invalidate my input? This is you dwelling on it, you literally took my post, ignored half of it, and tried to argue I was biased, all because of one word. It reaks of you trying to assume malice from me for no reason. Gossiping is the term for what you were doing, gossiping does not have to involve lies, you can 'vent' through gossip, and that was not a private chat. 'Semi-Private' is even pushing it, anyone could join if they had an invite link and there were no rules on handing them out. Many Aurorans were there and each of them read what you were saying, not just about your shittalking of Schev but also it's happened of other people. The sad part about this is you chose a part that we agreed on (That you were also at fault) and tried to argue against it instead of addressing my point -- That Garnascus actually had justification for warning you both with a ban and that the deal was useful as a tool to deter you two from stirring the hornets nest with each other. I even agreed that it had problems, but your complaint is with the whole thing. You left on August 6th. The second complaint was put up on July 25th, that's a multiple day difference and you hadn't left before the complaint, the deal was made on the 27th of July. Secondly, talking behind someones back to people they interact with on a daily basis is MUCH worse than 'Saying the words to their face'. You arguably cause more harm by doing that as it makes the other people hate them and puts them into a position where they feel they have to defend themselves to those people. (Or they will lash out at you.) It's provocative. So literally stop trying to excuse it.

What Garnascus admitted was that the deal had problems, not that it was unjustified. You Were both at fault, so trying to say 'No I wasn't, it was all Schev!' isn't going to wipe that away when it's a foregone conclusion that was uncovered in both of your complaints. The truth is I have explained my position, multiple times. Everytime I did it, you shrugged my input off as 'No, I have a different idea of talking behind peoples back.' No, the issue here is you are also at fault. I was present for a lot of your rants on other Discords. Try re-reading your two previous threads I linked. You would purposely go off onto another server and spread gossip about Scheveningen and other people, practically slandering them infront of groups of people. You really ought not be surprised when they are offended about it. You were part of the problem at the time of Garnascus making the deal. This doesn't excuse their behavior but it certainly doesn't excuse yours either no matter how much you try to downplay it. When you posted, I explained my use of the two was identical and I was just avoiding repetitive word use, you still dwell on that and try to 'Gotcha' me and strawman my argument. Yeah, I guess this'll be my last post here, as you're arguing in bad faith. Please learn from this as it's not the first time.

Resentment and insult are identical in this situation -- the meaning hardly changes, you were both verbally slandering each other. Trying to write it off as 'bias' because of non-repetitive word choice is very unfair and disingenuous. The fact here is you came to an agreement only after Garnascus' deal, and I'm posting here because I was involved from the very beginning and present in the thread where Garnascus decided on your deal. Correlation doesn't equal causation persay, but yes, I think warning you both with a ban was justified. That's my perspective. For reference: Scheveningen Complaint 1, Scheveningen Complaint 2.

Big yes. We already discussed the idea of Psychologist allowing a sitdown to treat traumas or suppress them. Let's give that to Chaplains instead.

Big fan of this idea as a Xenoarcheology player!

Having actually been present for the Schev/Burger situation -- Let me share my perspective both on you and Schevs conduct as well as my thoughts on Garnascus' compromise. First, we need to make it clear that it was not purely Schev. You may have forgot but while yes Schev may have started it, I can't confirm nor deny that, you actively went to other servers and would vent about your problems with Aurora. I was present for many of these times though I was non-vocal. So, let's go through some bulletpoints. 1; Schev would approach you on Aurora in Discord or on the server with resentment. 2; You would insult Schev off of the server which would provoke them on the server. 3; #1 would anger you, #2 would anger Schev. 4; You both would temporarily stop bothering each other, but #1-#2 would inevitably happen again leading to #3 intensifying the situation. 5; Because of #1-4 the situation was unsolveable as you were both fanning the flames sufficiently to build permanent resentment and hostilities towards each other. 6; Garn then instated that you were to say either nothing and distance yourselves from each other or avoid any hostilities at all or both be banned. Thus making Schev not do #1, You not do #2, #3 never coming to pass. And so the problem would actually be solveable. I think Garnascus was justified in his approach, bar banning one of you, this was an unsolveable problem that you were both perpetuating. Who started it doesn't matter as you were both making it difficult and refused to solve it, up until you made up AFTER Garnascus instituted the ban ultimatum. This was the only solution that I can see which didn't end with one or both of you permanentally banned, and so personally from my point of view, it was an alright solution even if it could stand to be improved if there's a next time.

Giving them janitor access would be p. funny and I'd support it, but general department access is about as far as it should go IMO.

I'm a big fan of this and I like the idea a lot. Also voyd is a fantastic roleplayer, all of my interactions with them have been great, and they seem to have a consistently high standard of roleplay. I've roleplayed with them on and off between many different characters, as my 'borg, in Cargo as a looong abandoned character, in Science once or twice as my Skrell? maybe, can't remember on that one. Anyway, my point, I trust them with a concept like this, I think they can do it justice, my only worry is the idea of a 'borg that doesn't talk. I have tried a similar feat in the past, and it didn't work too well. What I ended up doing Voyd is to bind a key to a custom emote beep for acknowledging queries and pre-set responses that people could grow accustomed to, this worked better for me than not talking at all. The reason a non-talking 'borg doesn't work too well is no fault of your own -- People simply won't roll with it, and will try to say you're breaking your laws by not responding to them quickly. They don't understand that you're doing your laws to the best of your Characters Ability, not your own OOC ability. Up to you on what you ultimately do. +1.

I was very ambivalent to the proposed changes in the last thread, and making it a blanket 50%/50%. However, this change when tweaked substantially could turn out the balance of the TCFL being more common but the ERT still being possible and just infrequent that I was hoping for. I'm onboard with this, but I hope it strikes that balance because the TCFL has much more roleplay value and adds tons more substance to rounds, especially early on. Simply on virtue of actually being part of the character pool of the Station, whereas the ERT are nameless nobodies who exist solely as throwaway commandos.

I'm very much in favor of vastly reducing the ERT, the ERT is not thematically fun to roleplay as or with, it's a bunch of elite commandos who enter the Station and eliminate the bad guys then leave. The TCFL is fun, it can be any number of characters from any number of backgrounds, it can be pre-established and played characters, it has more substance to add to a round. Aside from that, the ERT was meant to be rare, their mere ability to reach the Aurora so consistently kinda undermines the whole idea of 'Let's send a lesser, worse equipped militia to rescue the Aurora' concept. The ERT was Always meant to be less common than the TCFL, this is a very important lore detail, and if we want to continue arguing 'Lore should represent mechanics' or 'Mechanics should represent Lore', then either Lore has to change or this spawn chance needs to be adjusted. I propose a 33% chance for the ERT. The ERT was meant to be more powerful and it was also meant to be more rare. If this isn't done then that's significant ground lost in actually making this change appear and feel compelling.