Faris

A fee that goes to the service account. This feels better to me honestly.

Purpose of the ban has been resolved and the complaint itself has been resolved. The ban will be lifted soon. Locking and archiving.

I think it’s fair to say Raymond has been retired for the foreseeable future. For now Khaled Al-Bastaki is my primary character. I have a lot of characters, most I try to keep them private and even to a degree delete some of them if I feel too many people know them.

A concern I have is how you react rule violations when made against you. In the case of your present forum ban, you decided to report the post and then proceed to break the same rules. I’m not sure what good a developer can be if they’re permanently banned from the forums, which might be the case if the behavior continues.

User has read the appeal verdict. Locking and archiving.

I apologize for the delay, it sat for a bit. After reviewing the logs present here, I do agree with the verdict handed by [mention]ShameOnTurtles[/mention] and while the escalation was could be considered severe, it is valid. I'm not attributing this to your tone, but rather your disregard to a verdict handed to you by a Primary Administrator. Furthermore, I don't believe Shame conducted himself improperly with you. What I can gather from this is an unwillingness to understand and learn, regardless of who is really right and wrong here. If as an example I am trying to enforce a rule on a player who I believed was grossly violating it and they tell me it's valid and fine, then per my intuition and experience, I might escalate as well to press home the point. When enforcing our rules, one of the primary things we seek to avoid is re-offenses. We filter through a tremendous amount of people and interactions with people, I looked up last months count and there were over 2700 tickets accepted. The assumption based on your interaction was not something I would consider unfounded here. You interacted with [mention]ShameOnTurtles[/mention] in a specific way and per his best judgment, assumed. You're not a malicious person [mention]EmperorVoyd[/mention] and I can understand your frustration in all this. You've been playing here for longer than I have and have a rather good track record all things considered. I just don't think disregarding a verdict in the way you have to Shame was proper, and it resulted in this escalation. In regard to your in-character interaction itself, you need to consider the item you used along with the circumstance. You were using an industrial tool that cut apart walls and rocks. The intensity of items is not entirely limited by their mechanical values, and even then, the plasmacutter was extremely dangerous at one point since it used to delimb people with ease, cutting even ERT troopers in half. While I won't presume to know your character, but what I'm seeing from my point of view here is your 4'11 20 year old Tajara with a childish demeanor and memory issues was acting rather nonchalant to a Vox carrying a claymore. In closing, I think the purpose of the ban itself has been fulfilled in that it opened dialogue between both parties. I've spoken with Shame and he's perfectly fine with lifting the ban if the issues here are understood. So, what do you both say? [mention]EmperorVoyd[/mention][mention]ShameOnTurtles[/mention]

Format.

I'm denying your appeal. 1) I don't think enough time passed. A month is by no means you fulfilling your sentence. 2) I am heavily leaning toward you having tried to ban evade. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here otherwise I'd disallow you from appealing ever again. So don't try it again. Your story and what I have don't add up. 3) You have consistent issues with a plethora of other servers. This includes lying and a number of staff related things. You can appeal again in 2019 if you're still interested. But you're not getting an appeal accepted this year. Also as a note, you've pretty much grabbed a different staff member every day so that they'd contact me over this appeal. Realize that me engaging you in dialogue means I haven't forgotten about you and that I'm dealing with this when I have the time. If you don't approve with this ruling, you can file a staff complaint.

It could've not ended if you didn't just log off when a staff member was speaking to you. Regardless of that, take care.

This is a mechanical suggestion. Moving it.

Until such a time as such mechanics are present, the general thought process in regards to disabilities and the permitted roles remains the same. Generally enforcement as is revolves around the notion that a person should be able to reasonably conduct their jobs.

This has been implemented.

I'm interested in hearing more feedback about this. Presently I'm not wholly partial to this. I'm sure most access obstacles can be resolved by some cooperation between crew members and obstacles are not necessarily a bad thing. Some modification on the minimum ready players can be made to compensate for that. Revolution, cult and changeling might be modes suited for a medium and above population compared to traitor or wizard/ninja. It's been discussed in the past. Originally security were blacklisted from antagonist modes to some extent but that has since been removed. I feel we benefit from having them susceptible to being an antagonist. Not partial to this, and I'd rather not have it so people default to security being immediately the good guys just because they can't become an antag. I'm willing to have something dependent on the current manifest count.

In terms of the whitelist, after a discussion with the team on the staff forums, here and our discord, we will be binning this suggestion as is. The logistics required for such a system aren't simple to maintain for what is seen as minimal reward. In saying that, some mechanical changes in regards to how antagonists are is a topic presently touched on by staff. Dismissing this per team consensus.

This has essentially been implemented. We're not in what I'd call an enforcement test to see if there's anything to tinker with. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=11915&p=105635#p105635

Slightly modified the format. It does not affect current applications.

We've discussed this with the moderation team and there's really nothing a policy from an administrative point of view to deal with this beyond our general enforcement, nor has there really been an actual suggestion in that nature. I do see some merit with what Bygone suggested here but that is another topic which the lore team can work on. I'm going to be binning this.

Essentially this.

What servers did he try?

Yeah, i had a friend over, he made a beyond account, and tried to join a few severs. He didn't like it, so he uninstalled it. So your friend joined the server and didn't like it?

Can you tell me about "daddyarrpee".

While I could unban you, this would become your third chance. You say you will follow the rules now, but what really stopped you before? Why should I take the risk of unbanning you when there's a strong potential you'll cause the same or even other issues?

I'm going to handle this complaint. If you have logs and evidence, I suggest you post them as well.

Just because you say people aren’t taking you seriously, doesn’t mean people actually aren’t. You’ve managed to generate five pages of thoughtout and credible discussion from both sides of the community. That’s not how people show they don’t take you seriously. If you default to this argument when a discussion doesn’t go your way, then this will actually happen and you won’t get this kind of feedback. Onto the suggestion. I’ve been tracking this and I find myself in agreement with Shame. This is something for moderator enforcement. Obviously there’s always going to be the odd case there and there of people disagreeing. Voting for dismissal.

I'd like you to outline the issues you've caused and what things you won't be repeating if I were to give you a third chance. While not unheard of, third chances are not incredibly common.