Faris

Generally speaking, I find that when it comes to these kind of tools, that when you downgrade their capability to this degree, it tends to permit and even at times force people to escalate more harshly. The disruptors need to still be reliable as a stun tool to a reasonable degree otherwise people will escalate to more lethal or decisive methods. Making it too weak or in the eyes of many, useless, it would encourage others to jump past it. Handing out carbines and shotguns is a very simple thing to do especially since when disruptors are used also tend to allow the usage of those weapons.

I cannot support this. Despite your recent activity, I’ve seen a lot of negative interactions in the past. You have the tendency to be extremely negative and toxic towards people, something I’ve seen you act like when it comes to coding. It is my belief that the attitudes of people are contagious to a degree, so having someone vocally negative about things would only damage the community. Not my nicest feedback to an application and I don’t want you to take this as an attack against you; but I don’t think you’re suitable for the role with your mentality. It’s too soon to see if you’re suitable.

Matt and I went over the issues listed here which we'll talk about. First I want to emphasize that going over logs does not always give us a full picture of the series of events given it only tells us certain actions with their timestamps, it does not give us locations and context for the most part. It is always more preferable to ahelp things in-round, even if you are not sure. This is not to say we have an issue with complaints, it's more that things being handled in round have a better chance of having a verdict with more information available while sometimes complaints have to be abandoned as certain things are not clear enough with the logs. Secondly, we've given the player some time to be aware of this complaint, but since they haven't been present since the 26th of last month and a notification was sent to them on server, but it seems more doubtful they'll be around any time soon for some manner of testimony. This makes things a bit problematic as testimony is important for matters of fairness. That being said, we did notice some rule violations in the form of how they've roleplayed which don't require testimony. These rule violations will result in a permanent ban. The player exhibited roleplay that is low effort utilizing internet slang and other phrases that don't really present themselves as believable manner of speech. While the incident seems minor, the punishment level is in line with our escalation of punishment as a result of a repeat rule violations, with the most recent punishment being a 1 week ban. Some examples: Edit: Locking and archiving as resolved.

@MattAtlas and I should have this wrapped up by the weekend hopefully if we don't get busy. Gives some more time to the listed person to respond.

I find this joke to be posted in public to be done in poor taste and don't really appreciate it. While I don't think it should completely void the prospect of the whitelist, I feel like it's steered my opinion of you in a negative direction. There are certain types of jokes that shouldn't really be posted in public, even if a disclaimer is attached to it.

In regards to the content of the complaint. They seem to have already been spoken to about these things. I encourage you to ahelp these things in the future even if they've logged off as we can still question others, gather information and question them about it next time they're on. Furthermore, this is no longer an issue as they've been banned until appeal from the community for other reasons, so this has been indirectly resolved. If there is nothing to be added, I'll mark this as resolved after 24 hours. Edit: This is awaiting conclusion of the staff complaint. Edit 2: Locking and archiving. Will note something down regarding the player roleplay.

Doesn't it need a command ID to even use? So you'd still need to find a command level ID to use.

A previous issue with it was that it put an emphasis in people going for "shrapnel hits" where they'd use ballistics just to get shrapnel embedded and from that cause a lot of damage but essentially leaving them to bleed out on their own if they move or get surrounded if they don't. Danse has a fair compromise where they limit it to running only.

The way you phrased this implies that this is a reoccurring issue. Can you potentially cite other times where this was an issue?

I observed this for the most part, I have to agree to an extent. While it's alright to have some measure of friction between command staff, it needs to be reasonable. The bar for conflict might be somewhat loosened given that the story of the station is undergoing difficult and divisive times, but even then I feel the Director was overboard. The issue is that it seemed like it was overly hostile and confrontational, don't really recall any attempts to help the HoS considering they clearly informed the Director that for a number of reasons they aren't able to deal with this issue. The HoS outlined two issues. 1- Lack of people to adequately handle a Sol incursion at the time, the incursion for the time being passive. 2- There were other more active and dangerous situations to deal with, like the hostage situation. It would be understandable if the HoS was clearly aiding and uncaring about the incursion by Sol, but they had reasons, reasons I feel were very fair which the Director did not seem to care about nor give the time of day to be productive towards by actually being helpful.

I’ve had the pleasure of watching Hocka learn and progress as a coder. They don’t give up easily even when faced with a problem that halts their progress. Very open to collaborate and work with people. Goes out of their view to get feedback and ideas. Very easy going with people. I could go on but I feel this summarizes Hocka well enough. +1

You seem to have recently come back and even then play in irregular bursts, this is not an issue as a player, but can be an issue for staff. How confident are you of being active? Lore staff have a lot of stake in the progress of the server, they're by no means required to stay for years, but leaving a few months in can be extremely jarring especially if there's unfinished business?

Can you be more specific on what aspects you wrote? Like what part of the changes were you responsible for? Additionally, what steps will you be taking in the future before starting a lore arc to avoid cancelling it when it is in process?

I need you to play more often before I can consider removing the antagonist ban. You've been very sparsely active this year. Same issue as the same time as you appealed here. You can appeal this in a month, so the 6th of December. Should there be enough activity and no outstanding issues with staff, an unban shouldn't be an issue. Appeal denied.

Noticed you're on the server so I'll assume no issues then. Locking and archiving.

Alright, I think you're honest enough about it. You've been unbanned and will be given a fair shot on the server again. Just be sure to familiarize yourself with the rules as ignorance of them will not be a valid excuse. I'll keep this up for a day or two in case you have issues joining the server. Appeal accepted.

I'll give you credit as you don't seem to have tried to ban evade since your last appeal, though I think you're understating your ban reason. There's a difference between a sexual joke and with what you did, roleplaying someone that's pulling a gun on someone to have their character "suck them off". This is pretty rapey in its theme. So while you don't have a long history of misbehavior, the short list does have a very vile case of it. This was all done because you were bored. We have people of all backgrounds and most importantly ages. So if I were to entertain this ban appeal, I need you explain what you did wrong, why it was wrong and how you will avoid breaking the rules in the future. Essentially, I need to know you understand the issues of what you did.

You seem like a nice person, and your experience speaks for your suitability for the role. So on that front, you have my support. Though there is one concern, and that's burnout. You've recently become active with the community and seem to be putting a lot of work in. So the worry is you burn yourself out and end up not enjoying the community.

For clarification, I am not handling this. I am posting my perspective as a member of this community present during this event round and interactions with the player over the years. tl;dr at the end. From what I recall and based on what others shared with me, the Director was supposed to bring 4-5 people from science with preference to people with expertise in geology and 2-3 miners to assist. From what I saw and heard, this was not the case, both in numbers and in the preferred expertise. It is my belief that there is very little distinction between the player HunterRS and the character Edgar Dawnguard, so any hate from the player transfers to be the hate of the character. This specific event seems to highlight this from what I've seen plus their hyper focusing on only bringing the people they liked and ignoring the people they disliked, the latter part seems to have unfortunately also included people they were not very familiar with. I'm going to cite some problematic behavior from the past since this does not feel like a first time incident nor an isolated incident. Your first approved application at the time, myself and a few others even supported it. However, it led to this. So your whitelist is stripped and then you make five whitelist applications which get denied for a number of reasons. Last one was denied by me to which you threw a staff complaint. I have no issue with the staff complaint itself but the continued attitude where you disregard feedback from others and then treated the verdict on the complaint as "you knew nothing would happen" which is a pattern of you never believing you're in the wrong despite your public apologies. Still, benefit of doubt was given once more. You adhered to the whitelist application feedback which later became a condition which took you five applications and a staff complaint to adhere to. Even then people still had a negative perception of you. Your CCIA application would've have still likely been denied had you not redacted it. Tl;dr: This case seems like both a case of metagrudge and preferring involving the player/character friends contrary to CCIA instructions. The character and player are essentially the same, so what the character hates, the player hates. You don't seem receptive to feedback and likely not genuine when you apologize. This is my perception with the player which is not based on an isolated incident, but incidents over the years. They're either aware of their conduct or not, both of which is not good.

We apologize for the delay. @BoryaTheSlayer and I were assigned this complaint on the 20th of this month. After looking into the complaint, we attempted to contact the person listed in this complaint on the 22nd. They have not responded so we are going forward with the verdict. 1- The golem issue was deemed fine. NSS Aurora is ultimately a research station, so focusing on things with research potential is fine. Characters can put risk versus analysis to these situations to determine whether the risk and issues being caused are worth the potential outcome or not. 2- There were issues with the usage of bombs from science to deal with the blob. It is alright to use different means to deal with the biohazard, but consideration needs to be given for the people in the vicinity and damages caused. When utilizing such extreme methods, there needs to be a sufficient amount of effort put into preparation and precaution as they were not antagonist. A warning was issued for this detailing the issues. We'll keep this open for 24 hours before locking and archiving.

We can just call it medical intern, a person can flavor their internship as a residency. Cadets can already do the same as flavoring their cadetship to a certain role. Engineering apprentices have the same thing. Lab Assistants too.

Reporting Personnel: Khaled Al-Bastaki Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Head of Security Game ID: A round of Extended has ended! [Game ID: b9G-cQiz] Personnel Involved: - Kaxto Kuhwinla, Security Contractor: Offender - Cordia Caladius, Head of Personnel: Witness - Meria Volvalaad, Captain: Witness Secondary Witnesses: - Time of Incident: Real Time: 2340 GMT+4 Location of Incident: Security Lobby Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [ ] - Neglect of Duty [ ] - Harassment [ ] - Assault [ ] - Misconduct [X] - Other "Security Risk" Overview of the Incident: They were spouting anti-company rhetoric in the sense that "Nanotrasen can rot.". They showed no remorse or understanding of the issue despite attempts to talk to them about it. They were eventually suspended and Central was contacted. Submitted Evidence: Suspension form and confirmation fax from Central regarding the incident. Recorded testimonies Did you report it to a Head of Staff or a superior? If so, who? If not, why?: The Head of Personnel reported it over Command frequency. Myself, the Head of Security and Captain heard it, took interest in it and investigated with myself taking the lead. Actions taken: Timeline of events 1- The Head of Personnel as shown in their testimony, attempted to speak to them about it, which did not seem to yield much due to the attitude and opinions of the offender. 2- After it was reported to us, I brought the offender to my office and attempted to speak to them about it. They said that they work for Zavodskoi and that Nanotrasen can rot. They added that they do not like Nanotrasen. My intention was to potentially break down the issue and attempt to rebuild them, but they showed no remorse or understanding why it was wrong, so the effort felt futile. They were sent out of the office. 3- Captain and I discussed it. Best course of action was to inform central and suspend the individual. Their risk factor was too high to justify them being part of the security team. 4- Offender was called back into the office and informed of the decision with the reasoning behind it. Warden Carmen Zhao was called to make sure they surrendered their gear and properly went through the suspension process. No noted resistance to this action by the offender. Additional Notes: They were not an individual I can trust to maintain the safety and integrity of the station and its crew. The anti-company sentiment showed them to be a risk to have as part of the team, as they might not be conducting their due diligence which could cost the company expenses and threaten the lives of crew by inaction due to their very public opinions.

I'm seeing a pattern of attempted ban evasion plus as you allegedly stated, actual ban evasion, which we confirmed and uncovered other rule violations. This appeal does not read sincerely either. So the time spent between the initial permanent ban and now has been spent in constant violation of our rules. Appeal denied.

Was this as ScutLily or another account?

Reporting Personnel: Khaled Al-Bastaki Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Head of Security Game ID: Diona event - b87-br5S Commended Personnel: (Name, Job Title) - Emily Cress, Idris Security Contractor - Eliza Ingerlund, Detective Witnesses: (Name, Job Title: Short description of what they witnessed) - Khaled Al-Bastaki, Head of Security. I oversaw security operations for the shift from start to end. - Time of Commendable Act: Round long act. Real Time: (E.g 1200GMT+4 12/09/20) Location of Act: NSS Aurora, actions were spread out to the entire station. Overview: Before I explain what each did, context to how they stood out is important. Given the events that occurred on the shift, the lack of a Captain and a Research Director, their actions allowed me to greatly focus on my duties as a member of command with my other command members to oversee the station operations and crisis management over the events that unfolded. They went above and beyond to execute my orders to the fullest despite any dangers and difficulties that presented themselves. We had captured a number of the Diona as requested by the first set of orders from command and then improved relations with the Viscerabelt as requested by the second set of orders, it would not have been completed as well as it had without the great effort put in by the two individuals I put forward today. Emily Cress: I instructed Emily Cress to act as a team leader for the force of security officers I dispatched to the surface after the crash, their restraint from issuing any orders to aggressively deal with the Diona that impacted and depressurized a good portion of the surface level and safe guarding the crew present meant that when the order to bring them into custody for research by Central Command due to their great value, they were still unharmed and in good condition. They also executed the order for capture as relayed by me from Central Command well enough that we did manage to capture some of them even when a gestalt split into nymphs. This proved to be greatly beneficial when their true nature was proven and allowed us to hand them over to the representatives from the Viscerabelt, which improved relations as requested by Central Command. Their actions cut down on the amount of direct management I had to conduct allowing me to focus more on the well being of the entire crew as opposed to just my department. Eliza Ingerlund: I instructed Eliza Ingerlund to catalog, archive and log everything of note, especially a number of blood bags found from the initial impact on the surface level, in essence anything of note from the events of that day as it seemed like there was some measure of connection to recent kidnapping of high level Nanotrasen employees. Their proactiveness and determination meant that I did not have to give them specific instructions and that they pursued my orders to the broadest sense in a positive and beneficial way. Their ability to secure pieces of evidence, specifically the blood bags, meant that when the representatives of the Viscerabelt wanted what they claimed to be their blood back, we were able to do so thanks to the thoroughness of Ingerlund, which improved relations as requested by Central Command. Additional Notes: I did not list other witnesses, even my other subordinates or my peers in command as I had the only complete insight on the actions of my department and neither side had the full picture. The actions and events of that day, hectic and time consuming in nature disallowed any thorough briefing or even debriefing over the events.