Faris

Just a side note. Detectives when we still played on the Exodus use to have a different pistol before the introduction of revolvers. Revolvers were not always there. I cannot comment on why the change was made as it was a long time ago.

Point proven. Extending appeal limitation to 24th of July and applying a 3 day forum ban. Locking and archiving.

I honestly feel this situation itself was something we deem as in-character conflict. It wasn't over the top nor does it any break any rules. Characters are supposed to exhibit a certain level of competency which they all have, that doesn't mean they are immune to mistakes and their own personal ambitions here. What both [mention]calion12[/mention] and [mention]SirCatnip[/mention] said to you was correct, that it was just an in-character issue which you had the capability to handle such as contacting a member of command or filing a report with CCIA. The only Out-Of-Character issues I see here are from you when you decided to bring IC information to the OOC chat, which is a direct violation of the rules. Staff however were lenient in their understanding with your frustration. [mention]SirCatnip[/mention] was under no obligation to further explain it to you as Calions explanation was sufficient. [mention]SirCatnip[/mention] was not required to be lenient with your IC-in-OOC, but he was in consideration with your frustration. I did not have to point you to the correct subforum nor correct your original post to fit the format when our instructions are clear, but I did. I'm deeming their actions as staff to be valid with no issue with their verdict. You're still welcome to file an incident report if you wish to further pursue this, or don't, it's up to you.

They'd also be banned. The idea is that this would hopefully be a learning experience for you, as this is a ban applied to you. This does not appear to be the case. I'm going to deny your appeal after a brief discussion with [mention]Datamatt[/mention]. You cannot appeal this ban again before the 24th of May, alternatively you can contest this with a staff complaint against both myself and [mention]Datamatt[/mention] Leaving this open for another 24 hours.

It seems like you're in the wrong place.

I remind people of the following. Warnings or bans will be issued.

Generally, I only feel that people that voting for a round type that requires a minimum amount of people to ready, should ready up. Inversely, there are vote options that don't require a minimum amount of people to ready up or are very little that it doesn't really matter, and I feel for those it's not necessary to always ready up if the count is reached. If you're not playing a round, I feel you should not vote. If you don't have a suitable amount of time to play a reasonable amount of the round, I feel you should also not vote. Ideally voting should be reserved to people that will join the round, though that is not limited to people that ready up. There are times when I ready up since I want a specific role first and other times I don't since I'll join with a role that's not taken during the ready up phase. I'm sure there are others like this. From a personal point of view, I only ever vote for secret, or in the odd case extended. There are some case where I vote for a specific game mode but that's usually as a way to showcase new features of a gamemode via gameplay. https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/4632 This PR would allow us to log trends from people, and since while incidents such as the ones cited in this thread aren't a daily occurrence, they do happen from time to time and can be significantly frustrating as they do delay rounds by a period of time, which is an issue with people on a tight schedule.

Whatever, I just... This has taken anywhere from three to four hours of my time. I am drained as fuck right now. I moved it. It's not a time sensitive issue that you need to sort out immediately. Approaching this with a calmer tone is generally better. Edit: I've taken the liberty to modify your original post in line with the format. Everything you've posted previously is still there.

You could just ask me to move the thread?

This is for a staff complaint, not a character complaint. Make one on the staff that issued the verdict.

The event isn't as debliterating to the round as implied here. Even presently with the absence of virologist, there are other measures to cure, control or call for outside assistance to deal with it. Another point is that assuming Jackboots suggestion goes through, the issue of not having enough virologist will presuemebly lessen. Voting for dismissal.

I'm fine with this being given a test run.

Locking and archiving.

As I said, your excuse is accepted. You've been unbanned.

I'm accepting your appeal. You do have staff entries on going SSD, this is why I decided to escalate with the sum of the issues present.

I've done some searching based on something I've heard. I'm not open to outright removal of the implant without a replacement of sorts. I am considering the possibility of replacing it with something that removes the "loyalty" aspect. https://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php/Implants#Mindshield_Implants The premise of this implant is it counters mental manipulation. This would permit the concept of game balance when it comes to those vital roles and antags, but in the process removing this "railroaded" aspect people seem to have issues with. The draft I have in mind is: Captain/HoS/IAA start with mind-shield implants instead. Armory starts with mind shield implants instead. Loyalty implants are kept as a RnD thing and maybe other stuff. I don't know where they all exist at the top of my head. Obviously this isn't an actual proposal just yet, I do want further opinions on this matter. I'm interested on hearing your thoughts, especially those that have contributed so far. [mention]Azande[/mention][mention]JMJ_99[/mention][mention]kyres1[/mention][mention]Arrow768[/mention][mention]Zundy[/mention]

Notes are still placed for behavior that required staff to be corrected. You were playing a Captain. Captains are expected to deal with things relevant to the station as they occur. If an announcement was verified by CC, then it is your characters job to help facilitate it. Perhaps semantics, but due to the nature of how different they are, I don't group execution with borgification/HuT due to the difference in their legal standings. I won't say all such announcements of this nature are bad, I've seen some that are good, but I will also say that some are bad. And under the policy that was set for such announcements, we have dealt with the "bad" as they are brought up to us. This is the clause. Violation of server rules should be ahelped. This incident you cite is what I would deem as a rule violation. They're taking you out of the round early on without sufficient build up. Have you reported them? While I don't believe I've witnessed this sort of announcement, I do not feel you have such an obligation to suddenly remove yourself from a round in such a way. I feel it's very similar to a vampire ordering you to just "suicide". While they're different, I feel the OOC aspect is very similar. As for the suggestion, I don't believe you've posted your stance here. Do you want them removed? Modified? Or are you just here to argue what I present? Perhaps you feel staff enforcement is improper? If it is the latter, then this thread isn't the place.

Implants make staff bwoink me when I refuse to sacrifice my character's design and nature because a central command announcement from a traitor tells me to run a nation's round, or capture and execute someone. Or so many other things. Implants are used by staff to absolutely destroy a Captain or HoS character's identity . Loyalty to the company should make the Captain/HoS harder to use against the system - not able to turn into genocidal freaks with a single announcement from the uplink. Reviewing your notes has yielded 0 results pertaining this since you regained your whitelist, feel free to actually provide factual evidence that you were dealt with for playing a character. Though I will concede that there is the possibility that you were not noted, but you specified different circumstances so I feel it's fairly unlikely for multiple incidents to not be written down. I also heavily disagree with the sentiment that we use implants to destroy any notion of character. I cannot speak for policy that may have been a thing a long time ago. I can however comment on things that have occurred perhaps over a period of a year, to a time where I was still a secondary administrator, meaning that I can only comment on what I've been around for. You are perfectly allowed to question questionable announcements, the adminhelp button is readily available for you when you are in doubt or believe that the announcement is dumb to put it plainly. I think https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Nanotrasen_Corporation#Loyalty_Implants is very clear and open, giving you the leisure to play a character, covering incidents where emotions may override an implant. https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Revolutionary#Proper_Announcements This is for revolution rounds. As for traitor/mercenary announcements, you are free to fax questionable announcements. Those announcements are tools, they can be utilized properly or improperly, each method of utilization will yield different results. If an announcement went up that required you to genocide a whole race, it is perfectly reasonable for you to question this order.

I've left this for four days and my post hasn't received any counter arguement to it so I'm going to go ahead with my stance and making it official. Should this be outright dismissed with a second vote, you're free to make another suggestion to modify the implant instead of this suggestion which is outright removal. Voting for dismissal.

I cannot support this. While yes it can be a very good tool to people we can trust to use responsibly; yet at the moment anyone passing the minimum server time can be an antagonist, which I imagine would make a new malf/Vampire/ling unbearable to deal with. With our current stance on antagonists, I cannot reasonably support this. I'm going for dismissal but do suggest this is brought up if anything major changes regarding the policy of antagonists. Voting for dismissal.

I cannot think of anything redeemable of this event. While I have not directly witnessed this event, what has been said here and told to me was not something I'm fond of. You have an item that goes through the station in one line destroying and most likely killing people, even to go as far as to say gib them. I don't believe this event would add more to the narrative in the round and would even needlessly take people out of it. Not to forget the massive amount of damage it can do. Voting for dismissal.

Overview of everything I say at the bottom. So far so good. And this is where issues pop up. I've taken the liberty of underlining points of interest as well as number labels to address them for this quote and others as we go. [1] This is incorrect, while I cannot comment on Teamspeak as I haven't been there, you do have a ban on record for 3 days along with a 2 day ban from the main discord, information you could acquire if you asked. An addendum to this would be that a two minute search also yielded me the following in total. 35 staff entries divided into 1 ban, 5 warnings with the remainder being 29 notes. Discord had 2 strikes and 1 ban. [2] While they are within the qualities of what I feel a CCIA Agent should have, I don't think you have all that. Patience and understanding specifically with the past and even the present to extent in mind. Your problem solving and decision making also comes into question from other incidents where I've interacted with you or seen others interact. I'm going to list other qualities I feel are necessary that you may not have in adequate supply, such as rationality and a cool head. [3] I feel this is an incomplete answer. You mentioned below this was done on phone, this strikes me as you didn't really care much about it. CCIA does more, they are an integral part of round progression and lore advancement as they help facilitate almost everything from an IC prespective. [4] Broad answer, but not exactly much. Have you taken the time to ask any member of CCIA for what they actually do? [5] Experience tells me this is not always the case. So this is your app, let's get into detail. I'm going to discuss incidents as they happened. Now usually I wouldn't hold a single incident against someone, they happen, it's fine. But from personal experience it is not a single incident. The same issues keep popping up. I am of the belief that everyone is entitled in their capacity to place complaints against a member of staff as it's a serious matter, I however do feel that a complaint you raised was a bit silly. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=10397#p92878 Looking over it, it almost felt like you weren't reading what you were writing or didn't realize where the issues stemmed from. This was your initial statement to your complaint. You seemed unable to grasp what the issue here, even after we"staff team" illustrated the issue to you time and time after. So let me show you how you reacted to it at the end. After going through that whole ordeal, you just quit. Either you dropped it to save face or you actually went in there for the hell of it. This was really bitter and goes against what you said about in your application about going through with things. You were also especially bitter, while excusable considering your dislike to the ruling, doesn't put you in good light when it comes to becoming a staff member. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10807&start=30#p96528 This link also concerns me as it does display your OOC attitude to a certain extent as per my ruling on a complaint. Such behavior is not something I want. You are also very insistent that staff pick on you and treat you unfairly. What usually happens is you make an issue about it, sometimes a complaint and then you disappear, I lost count of your "I'm leaving for good." announcements you make. It feels to me that once you have something in your head, it's very hard to work around it. It took you six applications for you to finally go through the what's been required of you to reattain a whitelist that was stripped for gross misrepresentation of corporate regulations as Head of Security. To go back to my "I'm leaving for good." point, here is a link of a thread you made https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7744&p=74999#p74999 You just have a very strong habit of making it seem like any form of criticism is an attack on you and that makes everyone with an opinion to be out against you. I'm sure if I dug deeper I could find more examples of this form of behavior from you. Overview: I'll just say that I do not support this application at all for reasons explained before and reasons explained here in my overview. You lack the necessary qualities and trait I require of staff, chiefly among them a cool head and the ability to rationally process things, I've already cited examples above and I'm sure I can find more if I dug deeper, the current search was no more than 10 minutes across discord and the forums. You're also stubborn with the wrong things, which I'll raise you the whitelist links I provided as one example where you directly went against feedback and later command team ruling on your applications, I never understood the point of this as it really felt like a waste of the community time until you did decide to make an application with what was acquire, which as we said did get accepted. I have trouble believing in your ability to be impartial and not crossing the line of metagaming as you will have tools at your disposal which provides information not given to the average player. It's a matter of trust, which I'm not sure if I'm able to give you at this time. Next point is the minimalist nature of this application, have you asked any member of CCIA about what they do? Reviewed other applications? As you said, Additional Notes: Nope. If any errors, this was written on my phone so I will have to reread it later. My belief on this if you were accepted, is that something or someone would outrage you on virtue of you taking things super personally and as attacks against you, culminating in you disappearing for good this time and then resurfacing sometime soon, as it has happened numerous times. I've made this post using my observations on you, evidence and direct interactions. Any assumption I've made was based on the previous, so I don't think any of this is really baseless. Brief addendum. I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

A question was asked by a moderator. You can chose to either answer or not. The former helps you, the latter doesn't.

Witnessing your behavior and the unapologetic nature of it generally. I don't support the unban for a few more months.

I'll be taking this complaint. Edit: I've handed this over to Catnip.