Offworlder Head of Staff Expansion

[Zundy]

There would already be offworlder captains for NT considering that space stations used to *not* have artificial gravity in setting. I think the Scarabs are being conflated with all offworlders. Make Scarabs unable to be heads or whatever sure, but not every offworlder.

[Carver]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

I dont think you understand the context surrounding what you're suggesting. What exactly is preventing an offworlder from meeting these criteria? They've been around for centuries, there are definitely plenty of 35+ year old and 10+ years company experienced, with relevant degree, offworlders around who meet all of these criteria and could reasonably become captain if it weren't for this OOCly misplaced restriction.

Quote

The restriction in the first place exists because offworlders have only started being employed by NanoTrasen for a little less than a year.

1 ≠ 10. I fully understand the context presented here, and in turn believe that no species or sub-species should disregard the background requirements for Captaincy. No other head position has the same requirement. Now, should the requirements for Captaincy be changed, then so shall my opinion. Zundy also makes a fair argument in the post above, but until clarification is offered by the lore team, there should never be exceptions to background requirements.

[GreenBoi]

No one's asking for an Offworlder exception to the background requirements, they're just saying "these guys have existed as long as space travel, why can't they be Captain"

 

I don't see any reason to differ from my first statement- also, I'm going to smash against Paradox's statement with "Tajara are actually fast, this is a combat advantage for Security." Offworlders aren't fast at all, and can only go normal speed with supplements and artificial aid- while a Tajara could run to avoid what would physically hurt or brutalize them easily, an Offworlder fucking can't and is still weak enough to fall apart easily in actual combat. They would only realistically be investigative-roles (not even Warden since if the prisoner can easily beat the warden physically, they could walk into the armory and steal weapons).

[Doc]

8 hours ago, Carver said:

1 ≠ 10. I fully understand the context presented here, and in turn believe that no species or sub-species should disregard the background requirements for Captaincy. No other head position has the same requirement. Now, should the requirements for Captaincy be changed, then so shall my opinion. Zundy also makes a fair argument in the post above, but until clarification is offered by the lore team, there should never be exceptions to background requirements.

 

 

The entire point of the conversation is that offworlders should and really have been employed by NanoTrasen for longer than that year. That's... why this doesn't make sense. I personally had an offworlder character for about three years before mechanical offworlders were implemented that would be a CE now if she returned, but now lore is turning around and saying she's only existed for a year because... well I don't know, it really makes no sense, that's the point.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Doc

[SatinsPristOTD]

9 hours ago, Carver said:

Now, should the requirements for Captaincy be changed

You're not explaining WHY you're against this.

Offworlders HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY NANOTRASEN FOR OVER TEN YEARS. Offworlders HAVE THE NECESSARY DEGREES. Offworlders are OLDER THAN THE REQUIRED AGE.

I-- am really failing to see your argument. We've presented you with reason after reason for why this needs to exist but you keep repeating the Captainship requirements. (which we've said offworlders already meet, EXCEPT the Scarabs.)

But offworlders MEET those requirements. Not all offworlders are Scarabs. Offworlder isn't really a-- |species| but rather a term for what happens to a human that's lived in low or zero gravity.


Mechanical additions do not equal "new to lore/new to the company/"

[Carver]

I'm merely reinforcing the point of the recommended post. If it is, per the statement of said post, less than a year which I find completely believable on part of NanoTrasen, then that's that. Otherwise, as I stated: "-until clarification is offered by the lore team, there should never be exceptions to background requirements."

 

6 hours ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

Offworlder isn't really a-- |species| but rather a term for what happens to a human that's lived in low or zero gravity.

Lived in, no. Genetically 'adapted'/degenerated over multiple generations, yes. To call them a sub-species is indeed correct.

7 hours ago, Doc said:

I personally had an offworlder character for about three years before mechanical offworlders were implemented that would be a CE now if she returned, but now lore is turning around and saying she's only existed for a year because... well I don't know, it really makes no sense, that's the point.

I present to you a series of questions: Did they suffer from the maladaptive traits common to the sub-species before? What inspired you to retcon a character in such a fairly significant manner? Would you have written them the same way as you had, with these genetic defects in mind?

[Doc]

38 minutes ago, Carver said:

I'm merely reinforcing the point of the recommended post. If it is, per the statement of said post, less than a year which I find completely believable on part of NanoTrasen, then that's that. Otherwise, as I stated: "-until clarification is offered by the lore team, there should never be exceptions to background requirements."

The purpose of this suggestion is to revert this nonsensical ruling by the lore team- you can't then use the existence of the ruling as reasoning against the suggestion. As has been explained by multiple people in multiple ways, it is not logical for NT to have only just begun employing offworlders in the last year, and were it not for this ruling, there would be no actual reason offworlders could not fulfill these roles (besides the caveat of the security team).

 

38 minutes ago, Carver said:

7 hours ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

Offworlder isn't really a-- |species| but rather a term for what happens to a human that's lived in low or zero gravity.

Lived in, no. Genetically 'adapted'/degenerated over multiple generations, yes. To call them a sub-species is indeed correct.

No, it's not. Some offworlders have adapted over dozens of generations with significant genetic impact; some have only been mildly affected in their individual youth to have lighter/weaker bone structure, lankier builds, and weaker circulatory systems, with completely standard human genetics. Calling them a distinct sub-species implies a consistency between all of them that doesn't exist. The lore term of 'offworlder' encompasses the entire spectrum of individuals who have been permanently influenced by non-standard gravity environments; this is why there was rather protracted debate over even naming them offworlders as opposed to 'spacers' or other suggestions. The mechanical race encompasses the more heavily physically affected end of spectrum of offworlders, but it's entirely possible for a person closer to what our mechanical standard humans represents (i.e., less physically inhibited) to be considered an offworlder in lore by the way their environment affected their development or by their lineage.

 

38 minutes ago, Carver said:

I present to you a series of questions: Did they suffer from the maladaptive traits common to the sub-species before? What inspired you to retcon a character in such a fairly significant manner? Would you have written them the same way as you had, with these genetic defects in mind?

Yes, they were overly tall, suffered from poor bone structure causing aching in standard gravity environments, were significantly clumsy and pained by unsupported heavy equipment such as voidsuits, and often tried to avail their pain through alcohol when given the chance by lax command staff or other circumstances. There was no retconning; they were always, originally, intended to have been heavily affected from birth by a lack of full or stable gravity, and I even stopped playing them months before mechanical offworlders were originally being designed, much less implemented. If I had made them now, I likely wouldn't have changed very much about them; they do not suffer from the worst of an offworlder's possible physical problems, but enough to desperately want a stable supply of RMT to suppress their daily pain.

 

Of course, if I decided to play them now, lore would have decided for me that they haven't actually been working at NT for the past four years I've been playing them, despite the fact that they have because I did. That's dumb. That's why this suggestion exists.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Doc

[Carver]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

The purpose of this suggestion is to revert this nonsensical ruling by the lore team- you can't then use the existence of the ruling as reasoning against the suggestion. As has been explained by multiple people in multiple ways, it is not logical for NT to have only just begun employing offworlders in the last year, and were it not for this ruling, there would be no actual reason offworlders could not fulfill these roles (besides the caveat of the security team).

And in a very roundabout way I am saying that the decision is ultimately made by the lore team.

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

No, it's not. Some offworlders have adapted over dozens of generations with significant genetic impact; some have only been mildly affected in their individual youth to have lighter/weaker bone structure, lankier builds, and weaker circulatory systems, with completely standard human genetics. Calling them a distinct sub-species implies a consistency between all of them that doesn't exist. The lore term of 'offworlder' encompasses the entire spectrum of individuals who have been permanently influenced by non-standard gravity environments; this is why there was rather protracted debate over even naming them offworlders as opposed to 'spacers' or other suggestions. The mechanical race encompasses the more heavily physically affected end of spectrum of offworlders, but it's entirely possible for a person closer to what our mechanical standard humans represents (i.e., less physically inhibited) to be considered an offworlder in lore by the way their environment affected their development or by their lineage.

The consistency there-in lays in them being, mechanically, a sub-species akin to the various types of Tajara. If you were born without said defects and developed physical flaws over time, that would not genetically make you an off-worlder, that'd make you a physically disabled human.

You would not look like this unless it were distinctly genetic.

You would instead look like a taller, skinnier and frailer version of this.

This is why I would have vastly preferred if such conditions were handled from the disabilities menu in character creation rather than making them entirely separated to a mechanical sub-species.

[Aphelion]

Nt should have mandatory bone density tests for captaincy.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Bone structure isn't genetics. Spacers are how they are because they were normal humans who were in zero-G for a long time. The same thing happens to astronauts IRL but their affects are less pronounced because they don't spend years on the ISS, just a few days or weeks.

Revert the restrictions please.

[SatinsPristOTD]

1 hour ago, Carver said:

genetically make you an off-worlder

But--- Off-worlders look the way they do thanks to lack of gravity, not genetics.

Marlon is absolutely right. This is something that happens to our astronauts TODAY. It's not a genetic trait passed on. Off-worlders aren't a species. They're a category of human that grew in low G.

also, that sprite IS THE TALLER, SKINNER LANKIER VERSION OF OUR CURRENT HUMAN. How else would we sprite that?

Edited January 21, 2020 by SatinsPristOTD
Addition.

[Carver]

2 hours ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

But--- Off-worlders look the way they do thanks to lack of gravity, not genetics.

Marlon is absolutely right. This is something that happens to our astronauts TODAY. It's not a genetic trait passed on. Off-worlders aren't a species. They're a category of human that grew in low G.

also, that sprite IS THE TALLER, SKINNER LANKIER VERSION OF OUR CURRENT HUMAN. How else would we sprite that?

You don't suddenly lose your nips, navel and other defining human features whilst turning into a chupacabra. If that's somehow meant to look human, it really doesn't.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

We don't know what actually happens to the human body after decades of living in zero-g environments. In the aurora universe this is what happens.

[SatinsPristOTD]

7 hours ago, Carver said:

You don't suddenly lose your nips, navel and other defining human features whilst turning into a chupacabra. If that's somehow meant to look human, it really doesn't.

I'm going out on a limb here and speak for a lot of offworlder players when I say--- they have nipples, dude. The naval isn't sprited because to put it along with the "|sunken|" stomach lines would really bloat out the sprite and look terrible.


But you've now gone from "Off-worlders are a new species and can't be Command" to "Well the sprite doesn't have nipples so they have to be genetic freaks and not a classification of human."

Please, pick an argument.... because it's really hard to follow the debate now.

 

[Carver]

29 minutes ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

I'm going out on a limb here and speak for a lot of offworlder players when I say--- they have nipples, dude. The naval isn't sprited because to put it along with the "|sunken|" stomach lines would really bloat out the sprite and look terrible.


But you've now gone from "Off-worlders are a new species and can't be Command" to "Well the sprite doesn't have nipples so they have to be genetic freaks and not a classification of human."

Please, pick an argument.... because it's really hard to follow the debate now.

 

My argument has been consistent the entire way (refer to the following quote that you opted not to read). You chose to cherrypick a reply pointing out a significant detail in them being a distinct sub-species, whilst failing to understand that 'genetic freak' and 'sub-species' (the term I used for a reason, they're not a 'new species') can be considered interchangeable in the context presented: A maladaptive degeneration resulting from multiple generations living exclusively in zero gravity, ultimately changing their morphology.

12 hours ago, Carver said:

And in a very roundabout way I am saying that the decision is ultimately made by the lore team.

You can go in circles with 'muh headcanon', or you can end the need for this entire suggestion thread by turning to the only people who can actually give you the result you desire. As whether or not a species or sub-species can be a role is not the decision of the general community.

[SatinsPristOTD]

But

32 minutes ago, Carver said:

considered interchangeable in the context presented: A maladaptive degeneration resulting from multiple generations living exclusively in zero gravity, ultimately changing their morphology.

this still has nothing to do with the argument on whether they can be heads of staff. You're absolutely refusing to listen to the fact that in our CURRENT LORE, they've existed for years upon years. The only reason they're "new" is because we just recently made them a MECHANICAL option.

There's no "muh headcanon" about this dude. You are LITERALLY failing to read any sort of concrete evidence against your "MUH LOGIC" responses.

[Carver]

2 minutes ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

But

this still has nothing to do with the argument on whether they can be heads of staff. You're absolutely refusing to listen to the fact that in our CURRENT LORE, they've existed for years upon years. The only reason they're "new" is because we just recently made them a MECHANICAL option.

There's no "muh headcanon" about this dude. You are LITERALLY failing to read any sort of concrete evidence against your "MUH LOGIC" responses.

You once more disregard the end point of my argument, bravo. I will present this in the form of quotes that can be pieced together in order.

Quote

The restriction in the first place exists because offworlders have only started being employed by NanoTrasen for a little less than a year.

On 19/01/2020 at 23:34, Carver said:

1 ≠ 10. I fully understand the context presented here, and in turn believe that no species or sub-species should disregard the background requirements for Captaincy.

14 hours ago, Carver said:

I'm merely reinforcing the point of the recommended post. If it is, per the statement of said post, less than a year which I find completely believable on part of NanoTrasen, then that's that. Otherwise, as I stated: "-until clarification is offered by the lore team, there should never be exceptions to background requirements."

13 hours ago, Carver said:

And in a very roundabout way I am saying that the decision is ultimately made by the lore team.

 

[SatinsPristOTD]

The restriction in the first place exists because offworlders have only started being employed by NanoTrasen for a little less than a year.

But this isn't true. It's only true for Scarabs.

[Carver]

Then, per what I said, have the lore team clarify it and this thread is no longer necessary. A solution presented to the problem.

[Doc]

4 hours ago, Carver said:

Then, per what I said, have the lore team clarify it and this thread is no longer necessary. A solution presented to the problem.

 

Is this some kind of bizarre attempt at trolling? Has this entire conversation been an elaborate ruse to waste as many people's time as possible while accomplishing no actual meaningful discussion?

 

Guess what this suggestion thread is for.

 

Getting them to do that.

 

 

[Scheveningen]

Wild conversation here.

I support the head of staff expansion to offworlders.

[Carver]

17 hours ago, Doc said:

Is this some kind of bizarre attempt at trolling? Has this entire conversation been an elaborate ruse to waste as many people's time as possible while accomplishing no actual meaningful discussion?

Amusing as that'd be, no. The intent was getting a series of reasons why you think this should be the case, and seeing precisely how valid those reasons may be; meanwhile presenting that suggestion threads are, perhaps, not always the most direct way to get what you want (As it is also perhaps noteworthy that this suggestion does not require much if any work from a developer). If you're capable of arguing something reasonably to me, then one could easily do so via DM to whichever lore handler is in charge of this sub-species.

[SatinsPristOTD]

3 hours ago, Carver said:

meanwhile presenting that suggestion threads are, perhaps, not always the most direct way to get what you want

They are literally-- the best way.... to make a suggestion to lore teams to get a change put in place. One person cannot go to a lore dev and say "hey, I think this is wrong. Fix it."

You need the community's input in the matter. What I want does not equal what the community wants.

So yes, this thread was entirely reasonable, and very much the proper way to go about getting a change done to lore. A way to SUGGEST a better option be put in place. A easy to read (until I had to do some grand scheme circular logic with you), easy to understand, laid out in front for all to see.... thread of why this suggestion is a good idea.

[Carver]

13 hours ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

They are literally-- the best way.... to make a suggestion to lore teams to get a change put in place. One person cannot go to a lore dev and say "hey, I think this is wrong. Fix it."

Did you try it? That's a genuine question.

13 hours ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

You need the community's input in the matter. What I want does not equal what the community wants.

Historically, community input in regard to lore has been negligible in these types of threads. The only input that matters is the one in charge of whichever facet of lore you're looking to have changed.

13 hours ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

(until I had to do some grand scheme circular logic with you)

The purpose of which, per what I said: "-getting a series of reasons why you think this should be the case, and seeing precisely how valid those reasons may be-"
It can be reasonably expected that if you want something you should be willing to argue for it against all cases. Whilst I still disagree with your arguments (and the intent of the suggestion), you've made them and they're now publicly visible. Sufficiently presenting your case to whomever opts to read this.

[GreenBoi]

Bump because I want to see skinnypeople as CE and Captain