Faris

Locking and archiving per request. Feel free to reapply at a later time.

Locking and archiving per request.

Locking and archiving per request. Glad to see this was dealt through a mutual conversation.

A civil resolution to a complaint? I like. Locking and archiving.

So I'm partial to agree here with Jetniss in most things. The Director could've handled this better instead of just flashing Jetniss. During a code red where things are spiraling out of control, I'd have assumed malicious intent due to how aggressive the Director was. The fact they had an SMG out which Jetniss managed to disarm and take away rather than risk being shot, shows this was more of a self preservation thing. Though I'd say if you use the aim mechanic, then you fully intend to shoot them should they move or do anything, even if it's not a hostile thing, but I suppose time constraints with the whole situation may not have permitted you to edit the settings. Though there is one piece of log I find interesting and I need clarification with as it does show a part that may have been done improperly. I noticed in the first few pictures where the aim was lowered due to the target being too far away but the lock was required. Did you chase them down?

A rule violation is still a rule violation. You were originally warned for this but still persisted which resulted in the ban. I believe the punishment given by the member of staff is just and fair. In the future ahelp for permission. I'll keep this up for 24 more hours unless something else is brought to light.

Locking and archiving per request

For context, here's the ban reason. sircatnip has permabanned wolfsrainesp. - Reason: Caused the SM engine to begin meltdown in deadhour as the only engineer, and logged after being winded. If you believe this ban to be a mistake, you may appeal it on our forums. Ban applied in place of TrialModerator Pikl. - This is a permanent ban. While I won't be dealing with your appeal, I would like to note the act of logging off after being winded or PM'd by staff generally leads us to believe it was a malicious act. Had you stayed and spoken with the member of staff, this punishment wouldn't have been applied. I'm going to grab the Moderator responsible for this ban so they can look at it.

Complaint locked and archived per OP's request.

Played has failed to provide context, evidence or even the basic sembelence of what is wrong. Feel free to open a new thread with more information in the future. Locking and archiving.

Locking and archiving per request.

Wasn't an accusation, just putting our stance out there.

Archiving application due to inactivity.

Archiving application due to inactivity.

The complaint has been resolved and the name "Ned Ed" has been permitted. Locking and archiving.

A) When it comes to pinging the bot, do so in PM's as it still responds to it. B) Skull was unable to remove it instantly for reasons mentioned. The 72 hour remark was to show he is not obligated to drop everything he's doing to do the requested task. C) The act of spamming the bot is done by people and they are punished accordingly. The levels of spam caused by your client is one I've personally not seen by anyone else so it's a fair assumption you may have done it maliciously, but it is now cleared it wasn't and you're being directed to privately PM the bot in the future. Now, I believe this settles it. I'll keep this open for another 24 hours. Should there be more issues, it'll be extended.

Just want to point out that going AFK for extended period of times is generally frowned upon, and if done consistently may result in administrative action. If you plan on going AFK for longer than twenty minutes, it's advised you return your equipment and head to cryo. We've often had to kick people off the server in order to permit they be cryo'd for being AFK for an extended period of time. There are a limited number of roles available, which is especially problematic with our boom in population.

We're going to need more information on this. What did he do? What did he say? It'll be hard to delve into the logs without some context to it.

There's really not much to say that hasn't been touched already, especially by Ally. The application very eloquently written, covering all aspects I like to see in an application. The idea behind their application is also a new concept for me which I find interesting and has a lot of potential. +1 from me.

We've discussed this complaint a few times so far and are generally of the mind this is more fitting to be dealt with in an in-character manner as opposed to an out-of-character manner. There's already an incident report pertaining to this behavior that is being investigated by the Duty Officers. We generally pick between an IC method to resolve it or to deal with it OOC'ly, never both. After reading this complaint and the comments as well, and seeing that the person that made this topic has no qualms of it being dealt in-character by the DO's, I'm going to consider this complaint resolved pending the completion of the Incident Report. I'm going to keep this thread open for 24 more hours in the event there's further discussion or anything else brought to light. I'd also like to apologize for the delay on this.

24 hours passed. Locking and archiving. Feel free to contact me personally for more information.

First things first, I would like to apologize for the delayed response. In hindsight a post saying we're looking into the matter was warranted to show that this matter was being looked into instead of being ignored. I'm going to start with Alberyks side of this complaint. Generally when it comes to rounds that involve antagonists, as staff members, we attempt to keep things as smooth and as fun as possible for everyone. The Staff of Change thing is a very powerful and round changing item. We don't really condone mass use of it or unescalated use of it. In this instance where he ninja was transformed, it was deemed as one such incident, which for sake of fairness, had staff intervene. The wizard them self aside from this one incident were in my opinion as one of the participants of the round pretty great. They went around and interacted with the crew, causing mischief as they dead by fighting anyone that tried to cross them, leaving them broken as a warning to the crew. Now the fact they didn't flinch doesn't mean the weapon employed didn't work. Antagonists in general are on extreme ends of spectrums when it comes to capability. It would not be in feasible for them to avoid showing pain or discomfort, or to at least have a higher threshold, that doesn't mean they're invincible. We have in the past placed more antagonists or spiced rounds up to keep the players of the round engaged and having fun. Onto Shame. The warning and bans were justified in my opinion. We do not condone suicide without permission nor do we permit hostile and rude behavior towards members of staff. We're all volunteers here with the goal of helping and giving back to the community we so very much enjoyed. I do however concede that the punishment of the ban could have waited until your question was answered. As stated before, you were receiving two individual punishments. First a warning for the suicide. Second, a temperory ban for being very hostile and rude to the member of staff in question. We understand that not all rounds are going to be enjoyable and satisfactory. We also understand that emotions can run hot due to certain happenings, and I find that we generally give an adequate period of time for people to contain themselves before being forced to remove them as to provide them with time to cool down. I'm going to leave this open for 24 hours incase further discussion happen. You're also welcome to contact me on the Aurora discord or here on he forums should you wish to discuss this more personally.

If you're unable to find your account names, I don't believe there's much you can do on your end.

Typing in other threads about slow response is not going to get you anywhere. You failed to provide us with the necessary information to look into your appeal, so it will take us time to find the relevant information.

Fairly sure this would be a violation of injunction? So an infraction is already present for it.