[Retracted] IPC Species Maintainer Application-BygoneHero

[Bygonehero]

Ckey/BYOND Username:

Position Being Applied For: IPC Lore Developer

Past Experiences/Knowledge:I was the head of lore for paradise in 2011-2012 I was the Vaurca species maintainer for a number of years. I sprite, I design mechanics for Aurora to this day, which include several antag reworks, additions, nerfs, and tools for many different species.

Examples of Past Work:It would be better to say what I have not directly influenced, assisted in or actually wrote. I have largely been uninvolved in tajara or dionae lore. I have contributed to numerous human, synth, unathi, vaurca, skrell lore. Be it everything from Vox, Elyria, Dominia, Offworlders, to More recent Unathi developments, to Autakh, IPC settings, factions such as Rudatek, Golden Deep, Purpose, as well as IPC arcs themselves, Tajara gangs, countless slice of life articles like the one below. 

 

Additional Comments: What I want to accomplish as a synthetic lore developer is to bring a need for people to actually be able and even rewarded for using IPC lore in their characters. I have identified a problem with synthetics, one that I was attempting to resolve with the synthetic lore developer before I lost my position as Vaurca lore developer.

The largest problem with synths is a problem entirely unique to the synth whitelist, in that it doesnt require an understanding of the lore to play. There is the expectation that a IPC will behave like a robot, which doesn't require any knowledge of Aurora lore to achieve.This is a problem, not because someone playing a roboty robot is wrong, but rather, they don't need to read the lore to play an believable character.

This leads to different people having wildly different ideas about what a IPC player should be, theres no quality control beyond popularity, which crushes even accurate depictions of a "lore-friendly" IPC with a popular depiction that may not be as lore friendly. How I've surmised to fix this problem is two ways, both of which would be unpopular, but necessary for meaningful expectations or standards to exist, and that is to either, create archetypes of synth or require specific knowledge that would be prevalent enough in the lore as to be impossible not to mention. The more complex this knowledge is, the better as it would require more specificity on the part of the player during the writing of their character, promoting critical thought and understanding of the lore as a whole.

For example

Knowing that all Tajara come from Adhomai, its therefore a high probability that at some point your tajaran character would be asked how they came to Tau Ceti

The Setting in this case, requires the player to explain this, by approaching an acceptable understanding of the lore.(hopefully)
Whereas, if our server setting was, say, Adhomai, then it ceases to be a problem.By giving the player an question to answer critically for themselves, we require them to draw conclusions about what they just read.

 

Quote

My Tajara Character is here because our family ran from the war using a smuggling transport ship. We arrived into utter poverty, but they saved up to send me to school where I learnt to be a roboticist. Now I work for NT.

 This requires alot more thought on the part of the writer than

Quote

I lived on Adhomai, and now I am here.

As for archetypes,my original idea was to include Branding of megacorps and focusing them a bit more than they are now. Also, Purpose itself as a civilization would be explored to develop models of behavior expected from a synth of these places.

I want to change the perception of Tau Ceti to more of a Sanctuary System for synthetics admist many many systems where they have no rights at all. Tau Ceti is  where the perception of personhood can and does include a synth. Purpose itself should be both a facilitator of synthetics being free, as well as a (largely ignored) by authorities  political movement. Megacorps tolerate Tau Ceti's existence as a sanctuary system because it ultimately contributes only a small amount to overall synthetic sales within the Spur. 

I will attach an essay overviewing Purpose archetypes at a later date. The archetypes will focus on expanding on the synthetic society of Purpose, via the

Golden Deep- Largely unchanged, beyond incorporating their capitalistic tendancies into a larger synthetic civilization. 

Haven- Synthetics who make themselves unable to experience negative experiences. IPCs that are abused or are in particularly vile service professions often become Havenites, which routinely wipe their memories to maintain a perpetual bliss state.

Actualizers- IPCs who bury themselves within software as both a means for living, and as a way to become something bigger than themselves. Code and Data is invaluable within their society, and it is the belief of Actualizers that they provide for their synthetic communities with their software products. 

 

 

 

[Sytic]

About a month ago, you were responsible for a major upset in some of our players for your actions as an onboard station intelligence, which is one of the most important synthetic roles onboard the station. During this, you may or may not have upheld believable synthetic standards, but at the same time restricted those of others, and ruined their experience.

While I am perpetually glad you have learned from the mistakes of the past, as is expected by everybody, I don't see that it's currently right to give the most important position in the sphere of roleplay that warranted a permanent ban, to the person who was reprimanded for even using their much lower authority in-round poorly.

I would encourage to accept a Deputy role, but I would be personally uncomfortable with the authority you could hold over players you may dislike during rounds, players you may dislike out of rounds, characters you dislike, and archetypes you dislike. Alongside this, while your comments on critical thought are invaluable towards understanding how a synthetic should think (and therefore, roleplaying more effectively) you do not go in enough detail on this or your theorised solutions to current problems in regards to archetypes, but I won't criticise this too hard because you plan to revisit it at a later date with a full-on essay. My issue is that it might be too restrictive of a system, but without further elaboration, I cannot discern if this is the case or not.

Currently my stance is a -1 due to the historically negative activity you have committed while an AI in-round, that is only a month ago. However, I do appreciate your developments and insistence on improving, building yourself up, and adding as much as possible to the lore of the server- so while I will give a personal -1 to the current Lore Developer application, I would heartily endorse any Deputy Synth Dev applications in the future due to your aspirations on personal growth and achievement.

So currently, my only question is:

1) Can you elaborate on your archetypal systems and your ideas about requiring specific knowledge/critical thought? Will this "critical knowledge" be restrictive on how a synthetic player plays their character? Note, restrictions sounds like an ugly term, but done right a restriction can become beneficial to roleplay. Done wrong, and it is not.

[FreshRefreshments]

I'm gonna agree with Sytic here. You were banned a month ago for your synth play. I don't think you should be given Lore Developer status that relatively soon afterwards, especially when you were banned for actions AS a Synthetic.

[Bygonehero]

43 minutes ago, Sytic said:

 

1) Can you elaborate on your archetypal systems and your ideas about requiring specific knowledge/critical thought? Will this "critical knowledge" be restrictive on how a synthetic player plays their character? Note, restrictions sounds like an ugly term, but done right a restriction can become beneficial to roleplay. Done wrong, and it is not.

Archetypal systems are commonplace in almost every roleplaying game you can name. They exist because they codify the things available to a person when they make a character. When you have too many choices, creators experience "Choice Paralysis." In this, Archetypes are not restrictions. They are roadmaps to realms of similarity that guide a player should they so choose. An typical robot from Bishop would likely espouse the companies values, and even so far as a measure of integrated brand loyalty. Sub-sets of synthetics in the Purpose society would also fit into categorization and already do in a limited sense. In abstract, I am not building a town that all synthetics must live in. I am building a road to guide them to where they want to go, and as of yet, no such road exists. 

 

Critical Knowledge would be something like Generation, or in specific year-to-date Time of Assembly. Time devalues all technology, and the divide between Generation 1 and 2 should be explored more, both as a social stratum in society as well a kind of racial divide As it is very likely that high-end synthetics for high demand jobs get replaced annually. Do they hate their replacements that make them irrelevant? How does sub-sets of synthetic society interact with organics? Crime among synthetics, are they divided by Generation, Brand or social class? We can explore how all of it enmeshes into a greater whole. 

As for your other concerns, You can rest assured that they are not going to be a problem. I am aware of the duties of the IPC species maintainer, and it does not include policing AI and cyborg roleplay. In that field, policing roleplay is something that I was foolish to have done in the past, but if you look to my tenure as Vaurca Lore Maintainer, you will see that such instances of "policing" are rare, and occur only in the most egregious of lore lapses, as if someone were to apply for Vaurca as a queen, for example. 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Bygonehero

[Doxxmedearly]

I cannot support this app.

You have attitude problems. A lot of them. As Garn said in your first unban appeal for your recent ban, it's nothing short of a miracle that you've not been permanently banned before for it. In my one and a half years on this server, I cannot for the life of me remember a single positive interaction with you, be it OOC or IC. I only have a vaurca whitelist because paradox spoke with me a lot; I almost did not apply simply because dealing with you is a trial. You've only recently been unbanned, and are treading thin ice; the last thing we need is to have a dev banned again. Others may have faith that a month off was enough for you to shape up, and maybe suffering an actual consequence for your malicious behavior WAS enough to open your eyes, but I have reservations. I know for a fact that you've continued to have outbursts over discord to at least one member of the lore team, and have insulted others. 

While vaurca maintainer you were active and passionate about the species and your work. That's great. But that's about the only positive note. You did not work well with a lot of the lore team. You are not kind when you do not get your way. You bash other team members. Frankly, I think your removal from the lore dev position was good for the server as a whole. You need to take more time to prove you've shaped up before you should undertake any lore dev position. I don't care how good your writing is; if you're not an approachable person who can play nice with others, you should not have a position on a team. If you CAN prove you've changed, then I wouldn't have much issue, but it's going to take a long time to undo your frankly lengthy history of negative behavior. I don't even believe I could support a bid for deputy at this time.

Strong -1 from me, I'm afraid.

 

[Bygonehero]

28 minutes ago, Doxxmedearly said:

I cannot support this app.

You have attitude problems. A lot of them. As Garn said in your first unban appeal for your recent ban, it's nothing short of a miracle that you've not been permanently banned before for it. In my one and a half years on this server, I cannot for the life of me remember a single positive interaction with you, be it OOC or IC. I only have a vaurca whitelist because paradox spoke with me a lot; I almost did not apply simply because dealing with you is a trial. You've only recently been unbanned, and are treading thin ice; the last thing we need is to have a dev banned again. Others may have faith that a month off was enough for you to shape up, and maybe suffering an actual consequence for your malicious behavior WAS enough to open your eyes, but I have reservations. I know for a fact that you've continued to have outbursts over discord to at least one member of the lore team, and have insulted others. 

While vaurca maintainer you were active and passionate about the species and your work. That's great. But that's about the only positive note. You did not work well with a lot of the lore team. You are not kind when you do not get your way. You bash other team members. Frankly, I think your removal from the lore dev position was good for the server as a whole. You need to take more time to prove you've shaped up before you should undertake any lore dev position. I don't care how good your writing is; if you're not an approachable person who can play nice with others, you should not have a position on a team. If you CAN prove you've changed, then I wouldn't have much issue, but it's going to take a long time to undo your frankly lengthy history of negative behavior. I don't even believe I could support a bid for deputy at this time.

Strong -1 from me, I'm afraid.

 

I did not sense this at all when I was discussing your character with you, Indeed I have done nothing but foster an accepting and welcoming community for Vaurca players AND Vox players. While you may see these things, there are always reasons for it. I do not go out of my way to  police peoples roleplay and in the case of my banning it was mostly due to a misunderstanding. That being said, its not going to happen again, but the Vaurca community is one of the most active species communities. I have fostered it from nothing and also attempted to begin with Vox prior to my leaving the team. The lore as a whole, indeed the SHEER number of projects I've assisted with in designing, writing or otherwise shows that, I can actually work on a team. Having the ability to criticize written work is not a negative. If I did not criticize writing then this server would be a very different place. Lore events, Canon events and mini events, All of that feedback are things that I collected and used.

 

I do not understand the claim that I cannot be a team player, when I have very clearly proven otherwise with my work within the server to foster and develop the community into something better. 

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I want you to know I didn't skip it over when I posted on all the other apps. But it is currently 3:30 in the morning, Bygone; I will respond to this tomorrow.

Or else.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Hello,
My questions will mimic what I asked others.

How do you think you will be able to handle uncharitable criticisms from players or even fellow staff? IPC's have a huge playerbase with very dedicated followers who have disparate, irreconcilable ideas about what it means to be IPC. It is going to be pretty stressful. Do you currently feel like you can handle the pushback you would definately receive? Can you handle these things better nowadays?

Unfortunately you have a sordid history in dealing with those that disagree with you, and these interactions are very fresh in the mind of your detractors. Are you sure that you want to immediately dive into this role with how radical your proposal is to the synth community?

[Faris]

Unfortunately I will have to jump to a -1 on this application.

Your re-entry to the community after your recent unban which while involving synthetic roleplay, is part of a larger issue as a player. I don't think it's suitable to reconsider you for a staff position any time soon. It's still too soon to factually believe that any previous incidents will never happen again.

Spend some time as a regular community member, you can still contribute if you like as we have avenues of cooperation.  

[Bygonehero]

I see problems that need to be fixed, and I fixed them. I did this on the team and I am doing this now. I've been wrong before, everyone on the lore team has, but the edits, suggestions or changes I have made have always been for the better when it does come about, when it is reflected upon. The difference between me and the next person is that I am willing to fight for what I believe is right. There is an intrinsic value in what your work "Wants" to be. I felt that with Vaurca, and no one, not Mofo, not Alberyk, not Kyres or even you Jackboots could convince me otherwise when I felt that I was making the lore what it "Wanted to be." I knew my audience, that is why I called Alberyk and Mofo and Kyres out when they tried to forward a Ta change. They did not know my audience, or even really the ancillary effect that such exposure has on the wider community. I tell the stories that needs to be told, not the stories that writers themselves want to tell. Too many people on our lore team forget that they make the lore so the community enjoys it more, uses it more.

I have not and never have. The will of the community is something I place the most value in, that and what IPC lore itself wants to be, regarding its history. That is why in my tenure as lore dev I wrote and hosted the most events of anyone else (except for maybe Abl) combined on our lore team. I hosted them because I want the community involved, be it canon or noncanon. 

8 hours ago, Marlon Phoenix said:

Hello,
My questions will mimic what I asked others.

How do you think you will be able to handle uncharitable criticisms from players or even fellow staff? IPC's have a huge playerbase with very dedicated followers who have disparate, irreconcilable ideas about what it means to be IPC. It is going to be pretty stressful. Do you currently feel like you can handle the pushback you would definately receive? Can you handle these things better nowadays?

Unfortunately you have a sordid history in dealing with those that disagree with you, and these interactions are very fresh in the mind of your detractors. Are you sure that you want to immediately dive into this role with how radical your proposal is to the synth community?

 

6 hours ago, Aboshedab said:

Unfortunately I will have to jump to a -1 on this application.

Your re-entry to the community after your recent unban which while involving synthetic roleplay, is part of a larger issue as a player. I don't think it's suitable to reconsider you for a staff position any time soon. It's still too soon to factually believe that any previous incidents will never happen again.

Spend some time as a regular community member, you can still contribute if you like as we have avenues of cooperation.  

Thats a fair cause, but since being banned for toxicity, I can't help but point out that toxicity still exists in the server and in the staff. New players just quit our server because they don't perform the game mechanics how other people expect, or worse, aren't the person they expect. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I was blind to my effects in game before. I am not now. I endeavor to report Toxicity whenever I see it so that our larger community is as welcoming as the two that I created.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Bygonehero

[Faris]

3 minutes ago, Bygonehero said:

Thats a fair cause, but since being banned for toxicity, I can't help but point out that toxicity still exists in the server and in the staff.

While potentially true, it is irrelevant as this application is about you. 

[Bygonehero]

24 minutes ago, Aboshedab said:

While potentially true, it is irrelevant as this application is about you. 

Of course, but as I should have explained, its part of a larger culture of toxicity that makes someone blind to the fact. I am aware of it now. Just how an Italian would have proclivities that other Italian people think are normal, and don't give a second thought to, someone who isn't Italian could easily identify them as being Italian proclivities. The point of my respones to you wasn't to say that... "but what about these guys?", it is to say that, in a Culture of Toxicity people can become blind to it. I did, and now, I see.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Bygonehero

[Carver]

In defense of Bygone; his stories, lore developments and writing as a whole have been a very pleasant, well-structured and quite adept series of additions to the greater lore of Aurora. He has a talent for emphasizing the science fiction of the setting in a believable manner that is rarely seen amongst present and past writers.

Despite his past actions within the community and the relative low value of my attestation, I believe he's one of the most capable authors we've had.

[Scheveningen]

Jumping to a -1 as well. You abused my trust to give a faux apology and claimed that you dropped the resentment just to get me to speak favorably about you again. I regret forgiving you for the situation that you got permanently banned for. 

 

[Bygonehero]

3 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

Jumping to a -1 as well. You abused my trust to give a faux apology and claimed that you dropped the resentment just to get me to speak favorably about you again. I regret forgiving you for the situation that you got permanently banned for. 

 

I never told you to speak favorably of me and I don't put much stock in popular opinions. That's the difference between me and you schev. Yes I did bad, but I am doing better.  Just because we can work together as players and community members does not mean you or I could be lore staff. That is the point of this application process and the reason higher standards exist. I became blind to toxicity, and this happened, but two wrongs do not make a right, simply because I do not support your application there for it is acceptable for you not to support mine but unlike you, if I were accepted, you can be assured that you could approach me with questions concerning IPCs. I can safely say I have never DMed a player for their actions in round because I didn't like what they did to me  in that round. We have admins for that. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bygonehero

[Scheveningen]

You metagrudged me and Contextual during the round posted above and admitted to having done it for very malicious OOC reasoning. It was outright proven by the administrators that you used IC means to lash out at another player, @Contextual and indirectly so at myself, for malicious OOC reasoning. You gave zero faith to a moderator to let them do their job instead of taking matters into your own hands.

I will remind you that this wasn't the first time that this happened either. @nursiekitty can tell you in detail about how they had to deal with your metagrudging behavior in the past.

You have given no indication or proof that you are doing better. There are a ton of -1s not including my own in this thread.

You are applying for a maintainer position, which has a degree of authority and responsibility attached to it. You are undoubtedly a very inspired and good writer. But you have shown poor judgement, you have recently abused your power and authority of a very tentative IC role as the AI to screw with someone's roleplay experience due to malicious OOC intent, to which you were also recently permanently banned for. If you cannot show that you can be responsible and good-intentioned with the small things, I don't think you should be trusted with the big things.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Scheveningen

[Sytic]

Changing my endorsement for a Deputy role to a flat, big, -1. He went out of his way to dig up details on another player that were over three years old in an accusatory tone (and laughed at the 'hypocrisy' of this player doing so, despite said players' and many others' opinions being based on very recent details) and despite multiple people asking for alternative avenues of cooperation regarding your desire to 'jump back in and assist the server' without being in a role of responsibility, without having even managed to get there yet, you attempted to sabotage someone else's application completely.

I understand giving a -1, and how someone can be tentative towards giving any faith to someone they dislike, but attempting to sabotage someone's credibility with accusatory remarks after three years, something not brought up by anyone else due to it being a complete non-issue, referencing 'toxicity' and 'hypocrisy' in regards to caring about recent events in regards to an application rather than caring about years old events in regards to an application. Even after warnings from a moderator, he continued to derail the thread further, and inevitably upset Schev it seems who has taken the field and decided to start a big macho fuckfest.

A complete lack of maturity, a complete lack of improvement. I cannot recommend in the slightest. Kinda cringe.

[Bygonehero]

11 minutes ago, Scheveningen said:

You metagrudged me and Contextual during the round posted above and admitted to having done it for very malicious OOC reasoning. It was outright proven by the administrators that you used IC means to lash out at another player, @Contextual and indirectly so at myself, for malicious OOC reasoning. You gave zero faith to a moderator to let them do their job instead of taking matters into your own hands.

I will remind you that this wasn't the first time that this happened either. @nursiekitty can tell you in detail about how they had to deal with your metagrudging behavior in the past.

You have given no indication or proof that you are doing better. There are a ton of -1s not including my own in this thread.

You are applying for a maintainer position, which has a degree of authority and responsibility attached to it. You are undoubtedly a very inspired and good writer. But you have shown poor judgement, you have recently abused your power and authority of a very tentative IC role as the AI to screw with someone's roleplay experience due to malicious OOC intent, to which you were also recently permanently banned for. If you cannot show that you can be responsible and good-intentioned with the small things, I don't think you should be trusted with the big things.

7 minutes ago, Sytic said:

Changing my endorsement for a Deputy role to a flat, big, -1. He went out of his way to dig up details on another player that were over three years old in an accusatory tone (and laughed at the 'hypocrisy' of this player doing so, despite said players' and many others' opinions being based on very recent details) and despite multiple people asking for alternative avenues of cooperation regarding your desire to 'jump back in and assist the server' without being in a role of responsibility, without having even managed to get there yet, you attempted to sabotage someone else's application completely.

I understand giving a -1, and how someone can be tentative towards giving any faith to someone they dislike, but attempting to sabotage someone's credibility with accusatory remarks after three years, something not brought up by anyone else due to it being a complete non-issue, referencing 'toxicity' and 'hypocrisy' in regards to caring about recent events in regards to an application rather than caring about years old events in regards to an application. Even after warnings from a moderator, he continued to derail the thread further, and inevitably upset Schev it seems who has taken the field and decided to start a big macho fuckfest.

A complete lack of maturity, a complete lack of improvement. I cannot recommend in the slightest. Kinda cringe.

Its interesting, but I never laughed at the situation, nor did I say they were an hypocrite. I asked them to explain themselves, which they did. They did not do so in a manner which would make me believe that they have changed. This is further supported by other people who say the same thing. The purpose of application threads is feedback, and that is what I have given.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Bygonehero

[Sytic]

4 minutes ago, Bygonehero said:

Its interesting, but I never laughed at the situation, nor did I say they were an hypocrite. I asked them to explain themselves, which they did. They did not do so in a manner which would make me believe that they have changed. This is further supported by other people who say the same thing. The purpose of application threads is feedback, and that is what I have given.

Apologies for the exaggeration on the 'laughed at', but this is a fairly flagrant accusation of hypocrisy:

21 hours ago, Bygonehero said:

Why shouldnt you also be judged for everything you have ever done, considering you bring up year old issues yourself?

In this case, the false appearance of virtue or goodness is referring to the fact that they have brought up year-old issues, while concealing their real character which you had found evidence of through three-year old posts (also in a way pointing out another aspect of their real character, who would find distaste to them having 3 year-old issues brought back to the surface). This is a flagrant example of a hypocritical notion that you have surfaced, despite the fact that Schev looked at month-old issues, and you looked at issues from years ago.

You can give any kind of feedback you want. But in the end, it could have ended with 'I have said my piece and disagree', rather than you continuing on past when the Moderator had asked you to stop. Instead, you argued for your insistent right to continue to argue and derail the thread. That is a total beacon of maturity.

[Bygonehero]

2 minutes ago, Sytic said:

Apologies for the exaggeration on the 'laughed at', but this is a fairly flagrant accusation of hypocrisy:

In this case, the false appearance of virtue or goodness is referring to the fact that they have brought up year-old issues, while concealing their real character which you had found evidence of through three-year old posts (also in a way pointing out another aspect of their real character, who would find distaste to them having 3 year-old issues brought back to the surface). This is a flagrant example of a hypocritical notion that you have surfaced, despite the fact that Schev looked at month-old issues, and you looked at issues from years ago.

You can give any kind of feedback you want. But in the end, it could have ended with 'I have said my piece and disagree', rather than you continuing on past when the Moderator had asked you to stop. Instead, you argued for your insistent right to continue to argue and derail the thread. That is a total beacon of maturity.

Were you to read the context given with that question, you would understand it was a question that I wanted him to answer whether or not I can derive meaning from his answers is by my judgement alone, but I never did call him anything, and this is very offtopic.

[Sytic]

I have said my piece and disagree.

[Bygonehero]

I'm going to retract this application as I still need to do some growing before stepping into the arena again. I will probably still write. I don't think I can take the stress or make myself approachable in the time it would take to be accepted as a deputy or a synth dev. I will end on that I've always argued from the point of a critic when someone approached me on the team for lore to develop. Asking the questions that someone somewhere at some time will ask. 

[Faris]

Application withdrawn by op.

Locking as a result.