Faris

I apologize for the delay here, I bounced ideas and solutions around my head for a while on this, discussed it with a couple of people before and even more no more than a few minutes ago. In essence, we're not approving this suggestion. Hardsuits that are on/off without the body parts enabled is fine. I've spoken to [mention]Arrow768[/mention] about possible mechanical changes/additions to hardsuits. Suggestion denied per team discussion.

So overall we're not accepting this suggestion. We don't want to treat the shuttles as a holy zone. People going AFK on the shuttle is really their own thing. We already have rules for 0-100 escalation which is an ahelp and a wind away from solving it. We are however going for a mechanical alternative which will be to limit the delay to a maximum of five minutes, though we'll still deal with people when they are reported or we spot them that delay needlessly. Suggestion denied per team discussion.

I'll start with the tl;dr We're going to allude to the existence of such chemicals, but we are not going to reveal how you make them. Now for the more in-depth explanation. I'm personally fine with the secret chemicals. I'm assured none are easy to acquire and they only get harder/more time consuming as they grow in ability. We already have a number of hidden mechanics, things that aren't around so easily in terms of RNG and a number of others things we aren't going to fully elaborate on the wiki. Finding the chemical(s) is a experimenting venture that yields a reward. Now as above, I'm fine with making their existence known, though I'll need to decide how far we'll go with that but we're not going to include what you need to do to get them. Knowledge is power and I'm fine with characters having more knowledge as a result of them experimenting and spending their time to find it. Some characters are more proficient than the others and that's fine. Though I do understand your concern on how this could be maliciously done, so I'm fine with keeping a tighter lid on the recipes. Suggestion denied per team discussion.

I let this topic stir for a while and a lot of back and forth both on staff discord and the forums has resulted in us in denying this suggestion. We went over the fact that this suggestion in itself isn't really more or less fair, it's another one based on random percentages. The only difference is that the percentages are based round by round as opposed to ours which are based by a config file that only certain people can modify. There's also another issue which is the fact that "extended" will be visible if it was selected, which while not 100% the same as the other suggestions, does yield the same outcome which we do not want. Clear cut Y/N on antags for a round on secret/random is not something we want at all. Suggestion denied.

That's essentially more or less already enforced. Removal of whitelists aren't generally visible and are generally only known to others if the player in question informs others or during official matters which generally happen. As it boils down, what I believe you're saying in short is people with this whitelist acting as "regular crew with extra access/kit" minus their leadership responsibilities. This is already covered by the rules and is enforced when seen/reported. Generally it's hard to spot unless a staff member personally witnesses it by either ghosting them for the round or directly playing with them for a good portion of round, to which they can report/deal with it. The issue with this is that we're by no means a majority of the community. The antag feedback survey at this time had 169 entries, and I highly doubt that's near the amount of people we see on the server over the week. So we're heavily reliant on people that witness behavior they feel is unbecoming of a command whitelistees where they neglect their duties to the extreme to actually report it to us. To sum it up, we already enforce it, we just need more people to report it for us to investigate and it's something we deal with. If there's an issue, certain measures are taken, with best case scenario being the hope they are informed what's the issue and they learn from it. Worst case scenario administrative action and/or whitelist removal which is generally the case for extreme repeat offenders. So beyond the fact that this thread has had the benefit of outlining the above, I don't feel it'll add more. I'm generally pleased with the work of [mention]Alberyk[/mention], [mention]Coalf[/mention] and [mention]Datamatt[/mention] when it comes to this.

I'm fine with this being a little addition, an optional thing for flavor that Officers can do. I'm not fine with this being a forced thing as security already has to abide by a set of procedures. https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Guide_to_Security#Standard_Procedure From an in-character point of view, I'd imagine employees when signing their contract, would be given some document or other pertaining to their rights? So this isn't wholly necessary. Voting for dismissal.

Not supporting a catch all. Syn already echo'd my stance but it boils down to the fact catch-alls will result in "technically legitimate" abuse, current regulations are fine as you'll need to be specific. Voting for dismissal.

His reddit posts are fine.

Not with any of those specific people, but my motivation for making this thread was ahelping this exact situation just yesterday on Sunday and being told by Nursiekitty that there's no specific rule against it. I don't really have a way to contact a specific person in the game, the ahelp function is pretty open to takers. Should I be poking people on Discord instead? If you see any of the three around, you can specifically request them by stating it's a command whitelist issue. Alternative both the forums and the discord cites them as your go to people for these issues. That's essentially what they're suggesting though, or at least what I gather from it. They're command positions, so some effort into leading is needed. We're not going to stop HoS's from walking about checking on things, the same for RD's who want to experiment. It becomes an issue when the HoS is just patrolling, not managing the team and simply using their access for extra help, or an RD who just pokes around his pet project without noting the fact his department is burning around him, again in this case simply using their access to make their personal goals easy, which is not a problem unless they're neglecting their job in their entirety. Again, no one is perfect, and a brief discussion with some players and Alberyk/Coalf yields that this is not some major issue with the current command whitelistees, at least none that we've seen. Generally those new to the whitelist need some guidance considering they're new to the roles, so that's to be expected and not something we're going to be punish until it extremely repetitive and against what we're telling them.

I can say that at least personally, people that exhibit the behavior of just being a normal crew member with just additional access are generally dealt with. I however cannot comment if this is a new recent trend, but even so the enforcement is there. Heads of Staff players have been warned at times and in other cases their whitelists removed, though I won't give out names, it has happened. Just a question before I continue on. Have you raised any specific issues with Coalf, Alberyk or Matt? I haven't been around as much this month to witness any blatant examples but watching the discord group we have for command related discussions, they have been actively dealing with any complaints they receive or at times any trends they notice.

I gave the thread longer than I'm required to and reviewed all the discussion and points raised here. I'm going to stick with my dismissal and bin this thread.

That's gotta be a lie. You don't play Chemist at all, according to the WI. :thinking: #1 is pretty wrong. I know and work with people on anti-psychotics. Why should being on anti-psychotics put you on medical leave? #2 Ehhhh. Take it from a real Chemist main when I say that you give someone a pill bottle with 6 or 10 pills of their prescription (regardless of it being 5u or 10u pills or w/e since that's what most people have on their records) and they don't bother you ever again. 120u is a dumb number. #3 That's an ahelpable issue. We've told people before to not have things like bicaridine as prescriptions, and that person even had it in like 1 or 2u per pill. #4 Also factually incorrect for the same reason as #1. Being on anti-psychotics and being on several pills does not disqualify people from having a job entirely. Voting for dismissal. Pretty much this. Any issues cited here are either something we're not interested in adding as it doesn't make sense or is already covered by the rules. Voting for dismissal.

Trial starting on April 28, and will run for one month until May 28.

That's because I'm not apologizing. I didn't do anything wrong, as far as I've seen so far. I came back because I'd hoped, after a month, it would be obvious with the benefit of hindsight that the circumstances surrounding my ban didn't justify that ban. When it became apparent that others hadn't reached the same conclusion, I started a discussion. And I'm fine with this discussion. I'm simply saying that your appeal was not suitable, and I illustrated why. You don't agree with the judgment, and now we're here, completely reasonable. When I say guise, I don't necessarily mean an intentional one. It is equally possible that I recognized a problem that you did not. The condition that warrants hostility is that the actions taken against me represent a one-sided attitude which is not at ALL representative of my regard for the community or the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants. Simply put, I think you got the wrong impression, and acting on that wrong impression made it worse. While I won't deny that there is a possibility that I may have gotten the wrong impression, as ultimately there is a possibility for everything, I simply do not feel this is the case. Fewer issues that you can see, you mean. This is what I mean by sweeping under the rug: the dumb shit that was said in there was massively destructive if anyone actually bothers to unpack it. Only, nobody else bothered to, so it looks as though I created issues when I only alerted people to their presence. I would like to discuss those things, but so far nobody has produced chat logs - only screencaps of me being rude when (as I've been saying for days) that is only half of the story. And not the more important half. A discussion resulted in this, I could perhaps get a more logs of this discussion itself but after this, both of you stopped and I left it at that, until more issues were raised later on where staff had to intervene. Rule #1 explicitly states that it's based on admins having a reason when telling you something, which is what's drawn into question here. It is my contention that the staff responding to my case (on Discord) were given an uneven interpretation of events that vilified me simply because others complained to admins about my rudeness while I didn complain to admins about every flavor of atrocity they produced. Rule #2, I have been explicitly contesting (ad nauseam) on the grounds that it prohibits some necessary speech. Employing ad hominem along with being both rude and insulting others in an argument is not necessary speech. You are not entitled to this form of speech on any of our platforms. If you want to have a discussion, you can share your opinion and discuss, everyone is entitled to their opinion. We specifically have a containment channel for the more heavy topics since people can discuss things, they simply cannot resort to what you did. I don't... think you know what the word "prostration" means. And if I'm misunderstanding you, then: I never said you were lying about anything, and I never implied you were lying about anything. You're right, I misunderstood the definition of the word, I could go into detail on how but it's really not relevant. I do apologize for this point. It doesn't matter if it's a closed-door decision if, at the end of the day, that decision is made by the only two people who have a personal stake in it. My stake in this is that of a Head Administrator responsible for the community. As stated previously, I felt your speech directly violated our rules, which is why administrative action was presented. It's disappointing, if somewhat refreshing, to hear you admit it. I mean, I don't entirely believe that you don't care (since, by your own admission, you volunteer out of good intentions and value the hobby of maintaining the community), but your conclusion here is extremely empowering as to the legitimacy of the argument I've made, which is: I got banned because other people didn't care about what was right as much as they cared about what was easy. I don't have any bad blood towards you, Sharp. I just know you made the wrong call. People are entitled to their opinion even if you deem it wrong. Some opinions might not be suitable for everyone which is why he have a channel specific for the heavier topics. What you deem is right or wrong in this scenario is to me extremely irrelevant since I'm not punishing you for the intent, I'm punishing you for the execution. If you had good intents, that's good, I just disagree with the execution. I'd also like to state that I have no blood towards you either and regardless of the outcome, if Garn rules in your favor, that's completely fine as I'm sure he'll outline why I'm wrong. I also still respectfully disagree with you on my call. I feel I've explained myself sufficiently with the points I felt necessary, so unless new points are raised, I'm leaving the rest up to Garn. Side note. Go fuck yourself. I highly suggest the tone you two are adopting improves.

Good will is nice and all until you hit the point of improper execution. By creating the conditions that warrant hostility and then demonizing that hostility, you have proven nothing but the fact that this entire episode is an overblown farce by a few people who would happily sweep any substantive problem under the rug as long as they can maintain a guise of cordiality. I gave you the chance to modify your attitude. It's clear and direct that appeals are for apologetic people who understand their error, which you clearly do not. I'm not seeing apologetic behavior here. Going to assume I'm part of people in the above. I assure you that I don't volunteer for staff for anything beyond good intentions. This is a hobby I enjoy, I'm not in this for some power trip or drama. There's no guise. So when I'm presented with an appeal such as yours which results in you mouthing off at the end, I'm not sure what you expected. What conditions warranted hostility? Telling you that your post doesn't look apologetic? That you don't appear to have understood the purpose of the ban and learned from it? There was no pretending. The discord had less issues with your ban put in place. The spoiler will have some logs about you between staff. The above covers it for this one. And we told you to stop. I feel like you need to read the thread again to understand why it was denied. This is in fact a "you problem". You're supposed to present your case in the original post. If you still needed more posts to present your case, then your thread should've been worked on more. Anything beyond your original post should be for addressing concerns and to discuss, which I did allow you. Furthermore, the thread was left open for another 24 hours where you can still present further information to light, but you decided to post what you did. What evidence do you have that I have been lying? I do not understand where you even bring such accusation. I deny it utterly. Schev is able to post input as he is involved, as could anyone else that's involved. Matt and I handled it, along with input of other staff members, this is hardly a closed door decision between just us two. The underlined is irrelevant. I am precisely keeping you out due to your unpleasant nature as shown by your violation of our discord rules. I'm also not interested in arguing with you about what's right and wrong. The rules are present, they detail what you can and cannot do. You violated said rules, we told you to knock off this trend but you didn't, you persisted. You still do not understand what you did wrong and are persistently arguing about the moral high ground which I frankly do not care about.

I'll lock this on behalf on Catnip, it's resolved.

Your ban is being upgraded to a permanent one. You may appeal it in a month from today, that would be the 27th of May. Locking and archiving. Edit: For clarity sake.

We are not responsible with your inability to understand clear, concise and to the point administrative verdicts. This is precisely what they told you. You are singling out a single player for ooc reasons that you cannot rightfully justify. This is metagruding. You want a player murdered. You don't want them converted, you don't want them sharded, you never specified anything else, you just outright asked they be murdered. This is the textbook version of meta-grudging another player because you wanted them removed from a round for your very blatant and clear dislike. My verdict stands, I'll only reply and review my decision if new information is brought to light. I'm also going to directly state this. The core principle of our rule boils down to not being a dick. The rule is simple, clear and direct. A person that is unable to understand generally does not speak English then, so it's understandable by everyone here in this thread. Your attitude as I outlined before needs improvement, towards the community as a whole, both the players and the staff.

We can't really be held liable when we make the necessary things visible and you don't read it, three times so far? As for the complaint itself. I find Shames judgement to be valid. Frankly, uncalled comments, bad attitude and then egging on staff by taking issues like those per the rules are quite clear cut. I'll reiterate, your attitude is less than optimal and if you continue as such you can't expect us to behave as patiently with you as we already have, you got off lucky with Shame. I originally kept the topic vague in the other complaint you raised in hopes you'd catch up, but you didn't.

I'm going to ignore the things without evidence for the time being, they're not really bad either really. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=10067&start=50#p90556 He wasn't pleased, he wanted more open and transparent dialogue to address things he deemed issues. I don't see the issue with it. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=10730&start=10#p95587 https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=10730#p95544 People make unreasonable request. The ban request was unreasonable, it was deemed as such. He illustrated mistakes he's done, you addressed your side in the thread and nothing happened to you. Everyone is entitled to make complaints/appeals/requests on the forums, and it falls on the person handling the issue. You've made complaints in the past and if I recall correctly, we also found issues which we raised with you. I don't think I'll be reprimanding. It's one thing to exaggerate and post what they thought of your responses to faking evidence and outright lying. I checked discord, only found a single post. As for dsay, the argument I witnessed was a discussion between himself and the AI. People die, people lose, people are allowed to "salt" within reason. If it was extremely obnoxious or toxic, it would've been stopped if spotted. If it was reported by people and we deem it as such, we'll stop it. We have warned and banned members of staff before for rule violations. If you felt this conduct was such an issue, why didn't you ahelp it? I don't really see this as egregiously bad either? His feedback is ironic, maybe if I was there I'd have asked to approach the discussion in the same manner everyone else is. Discord servers as a whole are not really the place for completely serious discussions barring, that's what we have the forums and github for. We have punished people for this in the past but it's usually if not always on virtue of them not listening to staff for not knocking it off. This on its own would be belligerent, but with the insight provided by Coalf, it feels you're both going at each other. The ">insert x here" text doesn't really show any serious discussion here, in contrast to an issue you raised in point four, I imagine this is why he went this way. Is it a bit dickish here? Sure, but I do feel you're also at fault here.

Locking and archiving since a staff complaint was made.

The only reason I'm not applying a ban for constant rule violations is because you need to somehow reply to posts made in this thread.

I don't see a single post of yours in this subforum beyond this thread. You've made a forum account after any changes to the forums have been made. The rules have not changed since the day you made an account on the forums. You can request an unban if you concede to your mistake here. If you refute the ban and believe it was unjust, then you are contesting an administrative action, that case is for staff complaints. Agree to the ban and apologize, here. Don't agree to the ban, staff complaint.

You don't seem apologetic. You don't seem to understand this mistake. You came here and neglected to read the rules on this subforum. You missed this. You also missed this. Make a staff complaint.

Gave it more than 24 hours. I will advise the person filing this complaint to improve their attitude when interacting with people. Locking and archiving.