Faris

From a balance point of view, loyalty implants are there for antagonistic roles. Removal of implants would outright permit vampires or cultists to essentially rush these specific roles, while they may not all have the same capacity as each other, IAA obviously the least here. To clarify, I do not mean round start antagonists, I mean cultists rushing to convert these roles or vampires dominating/thralling needing less investment than they currently do, which I feel creates massive imbalance. Yes, you can argue that with enough effort, the above can be done, but that is a reason for their existence. With enough preparation and effort, you can convert a Captain after removing their implant. With enough effort as a vampire, you can thrall a Head of Security. They're not supposed to be easy. Now, from a personal point of view. I am quite fond of the dystopian aspect of the implant. Overall, I don't really support their removal. I don't feel they're as two dimensional as people are leading to believe. The implant makes you loyal to the company, it makes you work in the best interest of the company. The two dimensional aspects cited here as really just two ends of a spectrum where the players can still decide in between. A person that has essentially been uplifted by the company through scholarships and care is different from a person who made their own lot in life. I am however open to perhaps reworking the interpretation of the implant, perhaps establishing more guidelines about it? I felt the loose definition of "best interest" and "loyalty" was open enough. There were a few points raised about the implants and revolution rounds, which I feel is a separate issue pertaining to a game mode as opposed to the implant as a whole. Edit: Zundy really hit this on the nail for me. I feel the "closed mind" perception comes from people unaware of the potential the implants allow, even though I feel the wiki section of implants explain it quite well.

Locking and archiving since dealt with.

Is this something you plan to do yourself or request the development team to do? If the former, I suggest a more detailed example as a proposal would be nice.

I'd support the ability of Botany to produce certain things that doesn't just rely on "biomass", maybe more things to grow. Granted they aren't stronger than like say proper medication or scientific stuff.

I'd rather we explore alternative modification instead of removing a mechanic as a whole.

Dismissing per the above argument.

Staff positions are not becoming whitelist based. There's an application, interview, vetting and trial for all applicants, which is far more thorough than a whitelist. Dismissing.

Application denied. Get unbanned first. Don't apply again before 13/05 if you're unbanned with this appeal.

I'm curious since your return. What issues do you see with Aurora? Community, staff, lore, anything really.

While standing up for your friends is normal and commendable depending on the context, I still feel both you and [mention]Theplahunter[/mention] are wrong. While you are correct, and out of fairness, a persons history is reviewed, I still find this hypocritical coming from you. You're diverting. Both of you were trying to outdo the other by narrating your rimworld games. Both of you are wrong. End of story. Frankly, Skull has more or less got my opinion on this complaint. There is no winner, this complaint is not really going in favor of anyone. The end result will be either you get along or the medium in which all these issues arising being removed from certain individuals. Side administrative action may occur as well for more specific cases cited here. This really. Some of these issues were raised to us, many were not. We cannot deal with things that we are not aware of. If things just bottle up and explode at a later time, it doesn't really Now, considering this has apparently been resolved between some of the related parties but not all. I'm going to make an administrative statement here. [mention]Theplahunter[/mention][mention]HunterRS[/mention][mention]LiliumArgentium[/mention] If there is any more obnoxious and confrontational behavior on the voice channels on our discord servers, you will simply be barred from using them. I've already cited examples before, avoid those. [mention]LiliumArgentium[/mention] You can't expect people to stay quiet when you do call people cucks, people will reply with banter, which you may perceive as personal attacks. Being drunk is not an excuse, you will need to learn what and when you can do things when under the influence. You are involved in this, even though the complaint is pointed at Pla, others are at fault. [mention]Theplahunter[/mention][mention]HunterRS[/mention] Since you two have come to an agreement, which I applaud, I won't be doing anything further on the matter between you two. But should there be further toxic behavior between you two, administrative actions will occur to both of you, don't take matters into your own hands, report them. [mention]Theplahunter[/mention][mention]AmoryBlaine[/mention] I can't really comment on your private correspondence as it's really between you two. But those quips in our discords do need to stop. It's a bit annoying to insinuate things such as what was said, humor is mutual after all. [mention]Azande[/mention][mention]Theplahunter[/mention] This doesn't seem to have stopped between you two. All I'm going to say is that if anyone lashes at the other and is reported for it, administrative action will be done with their history in mind. This now also includes sharing pictures involving Xanders appearance as evidence. Yes, this is all effectively a slap on the wrist, but it is a warning and further incidents of misconduct, toxicity and rule violations will be escalated harshly. Deeming this resolved. Unless further information comes to light, this will be locked and archived in 24 hours.

Remain respectful to each other. Edit: We posted at the same time. You get the point.

Yes, that sounds right Account name added.

Is it "ResearchMate 2459"?

Now before anyone decides to tell me the complaint isn't about them. Anyone I mention or quote has a part in this and will be addressed. Were these after the staff complaint which was resolved? If so, were they reported as requested? The link for reference: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=40&p=96023#p96023 Either my memory escapes me about the harassment or I never witnessed it, it's possible it's the former. I can however confirm on the bitching as I have intervened in an incident recently in the relay discord, the one you cited later on with [mention]nursiekitty[/mention] specifically. Do you have any actual direct harassment logs or pictures that we can reference? Nothing new comes to mind in terms of direct harassment, so were they things already handled and punished for? I need to say that this is really childish of both of you. It's also obnoxious of both of you to do in vc and has actually resulted in specific VC rules being formatted.[mention]Theplahunter[/mention][mention]HunterRS[/mention] Discussing things of your game is fine, but not when you're narrating everything and drowning other people out. Grow up both of you. Condescending: having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority. Yes, it can be considered bullying. But I'm of the belief that if someone wrote down their records, then they need to understand that people will read them. This behavior is not ignored, if it is an issue, did you or others report it? [mention]Zelmana[/mention] I'm sure is not always 100% paying attention and perceives things differently from others. If [mention]LiliumArgentium[/mention] is being toxic and obnoxious to people, then they can be punished accordingly. I personally have not heard of this voice incident until it was in this complaint. If this is true, [mention]LiliumArgentium[/mention] will most likely be barred from the servers VC if future incidents occur. The same applies to anyone that is really acting like a nuisance. I will say this is commendable and a good thing. Telling you that they'll report you for what they perceive is harassment is fine. It means they don't like something you're doing and would prefer if you'd stop. He's entitled to his opinion to the current state of the staff team, as long as it isn't personal attacks to the members themselves. I personally believe we are organized as best we can, though mistakes will happen, it's normal. The important part is we learn from said mistakes and improve. I do believe this is true and he hasn't done it since. I honestly feel that you may not really know this line from past experiences. You have taken character feedback as personal attacks. It is absolutely a server thing. If it is annoying people in a server voice channel, it is a server thing. You're both wrong. [mention]theplahunter[/mention][mention]HunterRS[/mention] This does strike me as something obnoxious honestly. I'd advise calling someone from staff about it in the future. The intent is also important. I have to side with Eve on this. You will receive criticism in all roleplay platforms, this community is not an exception. I do advise [mention]LiliumArgentium[/mention] to give the points you raised a read, not taking everything said personally is a good thing. Not everything said is filled with malice. [mention]Zelmana[/mention] is quite correct on these points. Especially the bolded part. Intent is something we do regulate. A person doing something out of ignorance to a situation is different to a person doing something out of malice, even if the actions are the same. We cannot deal with things we are not aware. What we may perceive as banter could actually be an issue which we do not spot. Report it, worst case scenario we tell you it's not an issue and everyone moves on. While it is not in their name, you're friends with [mention]LiliumArgentium[/mention], so I'm sure it has influenced this to a degree. While it is just to bring up his permaban as it is relevant, I can't help but feel you're doing so since it's convenient in this case. I'm saying this because you've always advocated the past being forgotten and forgiven, at least when it only involves you.

I had a look at the logs out of curiosity, though I will note that I'm not handling this so the verdict falls on [mention]DatBerry[/mention]. First I want to reiterate that the following really rubs me the wrong way. This is an opinion that really holds no substance here with a definite lack of proof on any grudge and is quite rude to a person willing to devout time for the community as a volunteer. This is clear cut ad hominem and I will be issuing you a warning over it on the forums. Moving on. The fight seemed escalated properly. Shoving, pushes, attacks and the CE believed you were using lethal measures on them. When you acquire the tools that can lethally incapacitate people either directly or indirectly, you need to understand that when you allude to the fact you're about to use said tools and they believe you are, they are going to escalate, which they did. Checking the time stamps also gives me the impression they didn't just spam click you. Another major point is your actual ahelp. This really tells us nothing and is honestly just a waste of both your time and our time. You adminhelped it, you should spend the time properly outlining the issue instead of us grasping straws to try and figure out what exactly the problem is, which you brought to us. Alright, you died, is it because you died too fast? Were you ganked? Did you die by accident? Perhaps you're joking? Did someone double cross you? Oh, could it be that you're trapped somewhere and are in the process of dying? Perhaps you made a mistake and you will die? We don't know, you never explained it to us. I might've personally asked you to ahelp again properly and closed the ticket. Another point is that it is your responsibility to properly outline things that have occurred. A lack of injuries does not mean a lack of attempts. You failed to properly outline everything that occurred, which twisted things into a way that Munks was in the wrong here. You are responsible for what you present to us and what you don't. We deal with what we see and is said to us. Logs, witness testimonies, observation, intent, history and a few other things all help determine a verdict. Based on what you told the trial in response to your report, it does give me the impression that you intentionally hid information. This is no different to us questioning someone for a wrong doing and them hiding facts and lying to us. It does not matter if you report things to us are or are reported. It is your responsibility to outline everything properly. Your failure to do so is your responsibility. You could have easily scrolled up and looked at how the fight went. Your original testimony was short and brief, stating that you simply stole the CE hardsuit so you got axed to death for it.

Another good compromise I feel. Note that they exist, just not the whats and hows.

Since this is more of a policy suggestion, I'm moving it to the correct sub forum.

In regards to the complaint you posted. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=10798#p96194 How would you fairly handle it if I gave you the ability to give the verdict on it? Decision + punishment (if applicable)

We're currently discussing this matter actually. Would a fair compromise be that these recipes are only maintained by people that have direct access to the config? Garn, Skull, Arrow and myself essentially. I'm also sure that none of these chemical things even do something exclusive? Feel free to correct me on this. As it stands, the premise of them being "secret" is something I want to maintain. People have experimented and have found interesting compounds, why shouldn't they be rewarded for actually experimenting in the science department? There are people that have discovered these things beyond the people that coded them.

What changed from your original post in the previous application?

This comment isn't really putting the complaint in positive light here.

Deleting a character and making a new one with the same qualities to bypass canonization rules is worse.

Posting this as a player, since I'm involved to quite an extent I won't handle this personally. My position of this is that any instance where I've seen Fawkes was as a Head of Security, Khaled Al-Bastaki. I don't believe I've really witnessed their game play from an observer point of view so this is all from playing with them. I think I can say without overstating the facts that most rounds involving this character has either resulted in them being charged or suspended for one reason or another. I can't really say I've had any pleasurable experience with them from my perspective as a player. Before this topic is raised for me, I'll address it. Staff are generally unable to handle situations they're directly involved with due to conflict of interest and the need for impartiality. For that reason I didn't handle any situation involving Fawkes and myself.

Not sure where I stand with it. I don't mind this to be testing out as one of the mixed modes, not the standard ones. So having a minimum amount of players readied up. I do not support this being a standard round type as it has a consistent force that doesn't seem to account to the population.

Maybe, but there are lots of things that effort investment could be avoided on. Skull himself also mentioned in his post that almost every round comes down to secret or extended in this system. I completely understand. We'll give this a proper discussion, with the number of suggestions presented here.