Faris

I'll implement it. Considering we got a huge amount of them recently.

Account name given has no entry on the system.

That's really not the case. While they may not bring it up on a personal level, it's still history, history they've tried to teach the Humans when it comes to artificial intelligences.

So uh, I have host on the server now. I'll get around to sorting this issue by tomorrow.

The warning won't be removed, it's instead been quoted to belong to the other account in the text itself. In our menu it doesn't put your ckey as the recipient so you're fine. Just make sure to clarify your relation with the other account if any issues arise in the future. Deeming this resolved, leaving it open for 24 hours.

So, feedback for the event I hosted. This was the snippet of the event. https://imgur.com/a/Qov9z The crew essentially were to recieve around 10 artifacts that they had to deal with. The players had more or less freeform to do anything and they did. /Discuss

In this case, I'd like to vote for dismissal. I don't really think people without departmental expertise should be making the calls for less-obvious cases, and I particularly don't like that you're calling out "taking away the power" from a department head to determine it in the first place. As mentioned by Jackboot, giving Heads the ability to cover these cases is partially why the regulation exists, and it is commonly the solution for the Directive breaches you mention. Others are covered by other regulations, and officer interpretation is an expected component of that. If security witnesses an obvious case of NoD, they can report it so that Command can then sort it out - whether that's by determining NoD, or ordering the crew in question to stop, which sets them up for Failing to Execute an Order if they do not. In the event of a severe accident or other extreme, reckless behavior, it's the Head that would be remediating the crew member in question via a suspension or demotion anyway. Edit: While I don't think this suggestion should be implemented as proposed, we are going to take a look at ways to cover certain cases of severe recklessness without a Head present. If it's decided that it is necessary and helpful to the gameplay of a round, there might be an update somewhere. Essentially this. Something else is in the works. Current suggestion is not going to be implemented. Voting for dismissal, won't lock and archive yet due to 1 week safety period..

Locking and archiving due to inactivity from the poster.

Locking and archiving.

Locking and archiving.

As far as I'm aware, you don't get to pick if a warning is IP based or not. Accounts on the same network more often than not share the notes. The proper course of action here is to inform the safe team that you two are under the same network, that way neither of you are judged for what the other has done.

I feel considering the context present between both parties, none are really at fault here. Each side acted as best fitting of their characters without violating any server rules. With that said, I feel a side topic presented here is something that needs to be addressed and possibly removed, that being the fail chance with the null rod. So, verdict is that this isn't much of an issue, as Flimango said, In-Character issue. The picture shown doesn't really show much malicious intent, more of a joke or off hand comment to me. Going to leave this open for another 24 hours if anything else is presented.

My questions were answered and proper arguments were presented. I do not feel the warning is fair so I'm going to have it removed. I feel considering the circumstances, albeit this may be an extreme action done to the antagonist in question, it was still one of the proper ones. They refused to surrender and budge, they fought tooth and nail during a time of extreme hostility and danger, so they died for it. Leaving this open for another 24 hours.

I've deleted every comment that was not beneficial, so every single comment here. Anything posted below that is not productive nor constructive will result in administrative action to their forum accounts. This person is clearly new. As for you poster, adhere to the format please. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=14#p35

List the most played ones.

I'm curious on why you had to kill them? You had a plethora of options to keep them in the ground without the need to kill them or even let dislocation. They were disarmed, left only with their fists.

Locking and archiving. Two votes reached.

I'm taking the complaint.

How did you make it seem like you actually knew it would work? It seems like you join and almost as soon as you knew and saw, removed the runes.

Mostly incorrect. First Contact Protocol still applies. https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=6678 If the vampire isn't outright harmless, there are several steps that need to be taken, but considering the species itself is sentient in origin, starting by performing tests on it seems like a bad move. The rounded ended with the Captain being forced to order lethal measures to contain them as a threat. All the actions that round were valid as I presided over it.

I'll be taking this complaint. Edit: I just realized that this was also ahelped. Can you expand in why they deemed it IC issue?

A brief look does put Alberyk in the right here. Even when the context permits lethals on sight, it should only be done to those that deserve it. Locking and archiving per request.

Honestly love it. It's a fairly simple item yet I feel it brings out the sense of utility that's a machine. Rain and such? I need ample cover for my chassis and items. +1

As it's been clarified now, I'm going to deem this accepted and conducted. Locking and archiving.

It's alright, I understand how frustrating this can be when it happens. I'm going to move this as a policy that's already present. Locking and archiving.