Faris

Hi, I'm sorry for the delay on this. So, there are two points here. The ruling itself and the ticket closing, I'll deal with them respectively. The ruling itself is right with the concept, it's an IC issue, I agree with this. However, I feel further clarification and standards could've been made clear. The issue with keeping it as flavor text and doing emotes to lower the volume is that not everyone gets to see the emote. For one you could effectively be playing it at 100% for an entire round, for others it could be at 0% volume since they saw the music turned off. When in reality, the character may have raised it and lowered multiple times. I don't feel the speakers themselves are absurd. I think what matters here is how the character portrays themselves, it's why I'm placing a guideline for the player themselves to follow. So [mention]Maereo[/mention] in the future will need to utilize the pose to adjust how the speakers are being used. If it's something visible, sure include it in the flavortext but only that it's something you can see. If you're going to adjust it, yes use emotes. But since this something you'll also need to use your pose for. An example is you walk out of the kitchen. You emote turning it off, you then adjust your pose for it. This way your FT would have the speaker visible, people can see your pose that it's off. The second aspects is the ticket closing. When a person is sending an ahelp, especially over minor issues, it's generally expected that their ahelp is sufficient. Maybe the ticket closed was abruptly to you, but keep in mind that you did ahelp something with zero context, so upon your clarification, they were able to make their judgement. Even on the second ticket, they took it and clarified further. Tickets aren't the place for major discussions, it's why we have a complaint board. [mention]TishinaStalker[/mention][mention]Ornias[/mention] Going to leave this open for a day at the very least in case further information is brought here.

You're allowed to make another appeal. If they tell you to not make an appeal before a specific date, then you should wait for that date to finish. You're allowed to appeal as many times as you want unless specifically told you're not allowed to, which is very rare.

Hello sorcflopter/sevtorchhost/oldoldie/treescope/cubinpete/eyesky and a bunch of other ckeys I forgot about. I'm not sure why you thought this would work. I'd say nice try, but not really. Appeal denied.

Application Accepted.

Appeal accepted. If the ban hasn't been removed, contact myself or failing that, another member of staff to make sure it's lifted.

I've already notified the relevant lore developers a day or two before that this needs to be clarified, especially covering the important conditions as being free/owned, posi destruction, chassis destruction and so on. So this may not be entirely necessary. [mention]CakeIsOssim[/mention] and [mention]kyres1[/mention] can most likely post here on when they're done clarifying these aspects.

Just to clarify something. The only people that would know the recipes are the ones that add it and those with access to the files. Tish is neither.

For the poll, we decided to add a section on the greetings window. If you did see this in the greeting window, vote yes, otherwise no. It doesn't matter if you used the link itself, the poll is to see how many members of the community do review the greeting window. Moving on to the actual feedback. This survey had a feedback pool of 174 people. First question. Self explanatory and the results were as expected. Most people do have some gripes with at least one game mode, proven by this. Second question. My personal expectations were that ling would have the most votes, followed by cult and then rev. While I was not entirely correct, it was a close call on the third position. Third question. My prediction on this was more correct as people had to select their most hated gamemode, only able to pick one. Fourth question. Results here are also reasonable, rework is generally the priority when it comes to mechanics and features. Fifth question. This tells me that people are heavily against retaining their most hated gamemode. So to break it all down. The results were more or less as I expected them, especially with how clear cut Ling is hated, almost double cult in the most disliked question. Ling does present an issue with the narrative, being highly dependent on killing people and being sloppy with the body generally means capture. While death is an integral part of the game, it can leave distaste for some players. I suppose we can look into reworking the game mode, but with how many have passed and how much of a pain it really is, I'm not optimistic on a rework happening in the short term. As for cult, a team based gamemode mostly dependent on violence and forceful conversion/sharding, I can understand the sort of frustration people can get, as even refusing conversions can still result in being sharded, still forcing you to work with them. Death is not always pleasant, but I feel for this gamemode there's still different avenues for things to be approached, it gives you the option to join them, you can be a construct or as a ghost join as manifests when they're summoned, so it's hardly a die and hide body as ling generally is. Everything else was more or less close to the other gamemodes in the most disliked question. Even in the question where people were allowed to vote for every gamemode they disliked, the disparity between ling/cult and the other gamemodes is present. So for me, it boils down to ling and cult needing some attention. I'm interested in hearing peoples opinions.

Which is as it should be. Just because I failed to kill someone, doesn't mean it should be assault. I feel this is pretty self explanatory, but I'll go ahead and clarify this. Failure in an attempt doesn't really mean you should lower the charge. I can shoot a person with the intent to kill but security/medical interference saves their life, them ultimately surviving doesn't change the aspect. The intent is very important as cited by the regulation itself. Murder To kill someone, or attempt to kill someone, with premeditated malicious intent. Assault To cause severe injury to another employee. Cyborgification isn't deemed a method of execution. An execution is a death sentence, and cyborgification doesn't actually kill as brain functions are retained. They're alternatives. The players/character are given a number of options to deal with situations. Only the highest level of infractions and even then, only some of these infractions do provide you with a direct access to this action. Just because the person that will undergo this procedure in terms of corporate regulation has little to no say to it, doesn't just nullify the fact it is roleplay in itself. There's a moral dilemma that I see is often used by people, those that want it to pass and those that vote against it. Different backgrounds. It's a normal phenomena to some, unnatural to others, disgusting to the rest and so on. The fact you don't see/hear peoples reaction doesn't also void that people may be reacting to it independently. There are already limitations to it from an in-character standpoint. 1) Resource wise. You do need resources to sustain this production. 2) Manpower and morality. I have seen roboticists refusing to conduct the procedure to their own ethical reasoning. 3) Regulations and votes. It doesn't always pass, I can push a motion as a HoS and still have it denied. It has happened before, it will happen in the future. They already can if they want the process to be done. However, it can still be applied as a punishment. A few other points raised by people here as well. I'm voting for dismissal.

I need to say this, because this is another incident where you should have sent an adminhelp to at least verify if it was an IC issue, worst case scenario we tell you it's valid but we cannot reveal why until after the round. Post round logs do not show the same picture that we can see during the round, as they do not provide the same interactive freedom of investigation as we can during the round itself. What made it seem like it was an IC issue during the round but suddenly worthy of a complaint after the round was over?

Perhaps change this into a holding cell? Considering it's a security wing. I do like the redesign. I do echo the issue with the cockpit, perhaps make it longer? More consoles, more chairs.

[mention]Dr. Farson[/mention] Your thread was returned due to round completion. So, let's hit everything that has happened after the round itself before I delve into the ban itself. You made this appeal during the round, giving out information. Regardless if it was crucial or not, it is still a violation of this sub-forum. You decided to convey your ban and what occurred during an ongoing round on a discord server affiliated to this server. After I handed you a warning where I cited the issues of this thread, you went on a rampage on the main discord. This is the forum warning. I've highlighted a very relevant piece of information. Your rant. I highlighted important bits. Including where I told you to stop. Now onto the ban itself. You decided after being harassed, to bludgeon yourself with a cane, with the intent to end your own life. The rule is clear. I also add the fact per these incidents cited here and an incident where I personally spoke to you not long ago, where I told you that any rule violations would result in this ban. You not only broke the rules here, you also gained two notes on questionable behavior. They were being lenient with you even though I wrote that punishments should escalate. You've been around long enough and have had enough interactions with staff to at least be partially aware of the rules. Frankly, after this behavior post ban, I was very tempted to escalate to a permanent one for your disregard of the rules. I will however keep this 1 week ban and the discord strike. I am denying this appeal, your actions do not show that you understood your mistakes at all. Locking and archiving.

I discussed this with Cake briefly and went over the posts here. Considering that there hasn't been a discussion here in a while and that the Synthetic Lore Developer themselves have voted for its dismissal, I'm doing so as well. Voting for dismissal. Two votes reached, locking and archiving.

This right here in particular. Ban appeals, more often than not, get tossed up in staff chat for us to notice it, and for the rest of us to look at it. I'm not saying that every ban appeal is 100% a collaborative effort, but what happens is that when it gets posted is that we all usually get a look at it and staff will chip in with their experiences. There have been some appeals that were discussed for days. It's a process, usually, and it's relatively effective in making sure a player isn't getting biased into oblivion. Essentially this. The divide between ban appeals and staff complaints is intentional. Voting for dismissal.

On top of this, there are only negatives to be gained. What is the ultimate goal of playing here? Or of playing SS13? To be engaged and to enjoy your time. This suggestion goes exactly counter, as it removes engagement from the situation and the game. This system would provide incentive for you to just leave and do something else. Death is cheap, as you yourself have stated. This means that you can die really quickly, easily, and, at times, with absoloutely no direct control over it. Because of this, the consequences for death should be minimal. The cheapness of death, and the lack of consequence to the player should go hand in hand. +1 dismissal vote. Even though this has enough votes, I'm adding a third. There are already enough side effects that occur post cloning that takes time before a person can fully return to the round.

He would have to, in order for you to even see the LOOC. Anyway, that's all. Look at the third line in the second link in the original post where he says, "I can't LOOC you because you're too far away", but he's not in the game... so my point is, if you can't LOOC me because of distance, Verb FOLLOW, click my character name (since you interacted with it I know you know which one I am already), and click OK, now I'm NOT too far away. My reply was to your question. A player may currently be in-game and a discussion may have occurred in looc. In the event that neither of you are close enough for LOOC usage, some discussions can be taken to OOC. A player cannot ghost over to a person when they're currently playing, hence why I included the part about distance. I never said I was too far away. I simply did it because it was easier and showed the link to the whole department in one go along with others that may be interested on the modification, as the link took you directly to the Hypospray section.

I can attest to that. Lacking any emotional quirks, they do have a personality, just not an emotional one. I do appreciate that you didn't limit your answers to just a "gets power from APC's" or the derivatives about it. I also appreciate the detail put into this answer, covering the round progression and how an IPC/Synthetic acts. But I do have a question for you. What drawbacks does a synthetic have in the current setting? You can specify your answer to Biesel or go setting wide. Things like tags, laws, events and so on. Can't say much more for the story that hasn't already been said, but I am a fan. From an OOC perspective to this application. Worthy has shown themselves to be a competent player and a proper grasp of believable and proper behavior when roleplaying. This application has my support.

I saw parts of the conversation, I saw the part where Stella did use the word but I didn't notice the part where you asked them not to. For transparencies sake, some logs were modified to hide the account names of players. You'll note the empty brackets. This is precisely what I'm seeing from an observers point of view. So yes, I was watching to a certain degree, I had alt tabbed to verify the wiki and the code. So yes, I do apologize again as I have before for using "My dude" later on, as you did not like it, that's fine and fair. Yes, I did go to OOC with the changes. There were multiple members of medical aboard and I felt that it was better to post it in OOC, which is way more visible than LOOC, especially with the color chat I have. This is all I said. I cited no specific person, I was general. I'm not sure where the passive aggressiveness is from me. I didn't even realize you were being specific to me. When Worthy interjected, I did assume that you perhaps thought I was the CMO, so I did ask for it to stop then. I still stand by my statement, which was pointing out the fact that you constantly asking for it to stop in the way you have, doesn't actually stop it. I think I've been cordial with you the entire exchange, and I deny any allegations of passive aggressiveness and trying to get the last word in. I addressed why I said this in OOC. I also do not play Stella Alice nor did I even play in that round. I was around this round strictly for server administration purposes. I saw another Admin play and I decided I'd let him enjoy himself more as I took some issues. Not an excuse. It was a statement to your question in OOC that I didn't realize was an accusation to me. I didn't realize it upset you so I took it as a general question. I still deny this. As I said before, I felt I was cordial and did nothing with any malicious intent. Per my previous quote, I didn't realize it upset you. The only thing I'm marginally guilty of here is using a term you dislike which was "my dude", and even then it wasn't out of malice. I often use terms such as fam, buddy, pal, friend and dude, this is the first instance where a person has disliked it. I still stand by the fact that by both my intent and execution, I was cordial to you. My interaction with you was devoid by passive aggressiveness and malice.

Discussed the matter with Kaed a bit. To reiterate here. When it comes to command whitelists, you're free to just jump to [mention]Alberyk[/mention], [mention]Coalf[/mention], [mention]Datamatt[/mention] or even myself. It's similar to how issues with species whitelists are. The enforcement is there, though I suppose it's rather quiet due to the nature of how we generally deal with administrative actions. I do encourage people to raise issues with people holding command whitelists to the above so they can deal with it. Though we're going to add a few guidelines to the rules tab as there's already an existing tab for whitelists. Keep both the players/staff better aware. Going to lock this now as an existing policy.

I don't understand how you can strip a wizard of their things accidentally?

Originally I wasn't going to touch this complaint but I feel I should place my stance on here. Keep in mind none of this is a verdict, as I consider both [mention]Resilynn[/mention] and [mention]Senpai Jackboot[/mention] as my friends. Overall, I do not feel the threat of an incident report to really be weaponizing staff. The threat of reporting a command member to a higher in-character authority is by no means weaponizing staff. The incident reports are handled by the agent themselves in tandem with the setting. There's a bit of inaccuracy cited here as I know for a fact CCIA are considerate and make special considerations for people. You don't have to wait around for voted extended nor do these interviews last an entire round, I'd say at around an hour as worst case scenario which is from joining the round to the conclusion. Something to note is that Jackboot has filed a good number of incident reports and has even just filed one against [mention]Resilynn[/mention] while this complaint is up. I don't really feel like this is an issue. If my character felt they were being improperly handled, I'd threaten raising it up the chain, which in some contexts may be an incident report.

"In fact, I can't help but feel Coalfs willingness to speak when you weren't so interested an indication on things, even though you could've just asked to speak at another time, instead of what seems like dismissing it." Abo you're giving me clinical depression. I was going to let this go but now I just have to talk about it now. This is the conversation that went down: https://i.imgur.com/xSaoIXn.png I stand corrected. The way it was described here to me was different from how it is. This is my mistake and I do apologize for it. Edit: Going to consider this resolved now and lock it. Don't think there's much more to be said now.

My opinion boils down to you two clashing. Contrary to the sentiment here, I had always intended to have you two speak, I still suggest for you two to do so, Burger speaking to me only gave me more insight on the matter. In fact, I can't help but feel Coalfs willingness to speak when you weren't so interested an indication on things, even though you could've just asked to speak at another time, instead of what seems like dismissing it. So let me touch on things for the two of you. [mention]BurgerBB[/mention] , you're very wishy washy when it comes to discussions. You take a serious posture and then jump to "don't take this so serious" to serious and variations, it's hard to get a proper bead on you. [mention]Coalf[/mention], honest joe or not, reign it in. Just because you feel they deserve it, doesn't mean you should jump into a situation like that. Frustration may get to the best of us but you still need to better control it. If I'll be direct. Block each other or make up. This feels more of a dispute between two people than extreme issues with a staff member. I'm not doing any major reprimands from this, I've already touched on the points before. None of you hate each other, so just try to be cordial to each other. As for the official statement. Coalf is being told to better control himself when it comes to sniping at people. He's always shown himself to be reasonable and I've never seen him shy away when he's been at fault, though that's not to say that faults happen often. In short, he's a reasonable guy and I trust that he'll be better about this in the future.

No further responses. Locking and archiving.

No, we're not adding a regulation when the hunger system on animals is that, as Alberyk said. Voting for dismissal.