Skull132 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I'll post this before I pass out for the night. I don't enjoy playing this card. But, I've been here since the start, initially as a player. Through progression and effort, I am now the Head Developer. Through circumstance, the Interim Head Administrator. I've had the pleasure of working alongside 4 wonderful leaders (Subdigital & Sphere, YeahChris, FFrances). And with Chris, we set Aurora ticking the way it has been, on the surface, been ticking up until this point. We accepted that it'd change, we rolled with it and actively sought it, with regards to a few issues. I have held that, generally speaking, Aurora has been the same eversince YeahChris and I established the core principles. But, take note of the tense. I no longer believe that, and it's puzzling to a degree. And ultimately, I am disappointed in myself for letting it end up here. Beyond the semantics. Beyond the people. Beyond the tickrate of gamemodes. What has changed? And why does any of that change even matter? What has changed is the current preference of a "no-exceptions" methodology. There exist rules, policies which frame everyone. Limit everyone. A character with an acknowledged criminal past is taken immediate note of. A character with an active, but undercover, criminal presence is taken immediate note of. A character in a curious position is, more often than not, taken immediate note of. The enforcement of blanket policy has become the norm. In a very crude fashion. Why is it an issue? Because, and I'm sure others have their own ways of thinking about it, but this is my own: there is no more reward in it. For anyone. You could create the most intricate character with the most active criminal presence, find all the loopholes and bribe people, create a situation where you can maintain a reasonable cover while doing your thing as the antag status ticks over or even without (smaller things). But the moment someone catches wind of this: "No, NT doesn't hire criminals." The effort, legitimate effort, is not rewarded anymore. And if this is the case, why should you even bother? Simple, you shouldn't. The station becomes a boring mix of minor-league fucknut #n, the shy medical expect #pi and the war grizzled detective #tau. Hyperbole, but you understand the point, I hope? The argument that Tainavaa is partially getting at, at least was yesterday, is that the approach should not be: "People are creating shit undercover syndicates, so let's just make it so no one can have undercover syndicates." And yet it is. The approach should be: "Okay, that's your character? That's reasonable, carry on." And yet it isn't. And the stupid fear of everyone having hardened criminals as characters? Or of every other person being some sort of syndicate agent that actively and poorly flaunts their butt? Those people can be managed. Either nudged and guided, or very simply nixed. But the fear of abuse should not lead to tightening the screws on everyone. Not like this. Obviously, characters like that will be kept to appropriate standards. Namely, if they get screwed over ICly, then that's their consequence to deal with. If they don't, and just null or constantly rewrite the character to avoid these consequences in a manner unfair to the others involved, then we can step in, tap'em on the shoulder and advise otherwise. People keep thinking "What ifs". It actually irritated me rather greatly today, during a discussion about the same topic. I raised these points, and folks immediately jump to the points of, "What if X, Y, and Z?" It felt as if they needed an entire book, with exactly outlined possibilities and molds that you can use. Instead of simply keeping to the idea of, "Is it reasonable?" Instead of writing an entire sodding book, or arguing an infinite amount of "What ifs", the initial situation should simply be assessed on its validity, and any damage afterwards curbed as it appears. Not because we're afraid of someone being a shit. Examples from the recently most active topics: multidisciplinary characters should be assessed on individual validity. Instead of writing up an entire agenda on what exactly we allow and don't allow. Guidelines which already exist. Engineering armsrace should not be defined by some visible line. The current guidelines of powergaming are already applicable enough: arming without a legitimate reason is powergaming, ergo, punish the ones that do that, and let the rest toil away, respond and die. The hardsuit removal bullscheisse should fall in line with the same guidelines already established for acquiring genetic copies of yourself and other folks as genetics: if SOP for character, then consider passable, until deemed objectively detrimental to gameplay. And yet, some folks are pushing these to be general policies. Which is the issue: framing and molding. This will potentially bring more folks yelling, "Favourtism!" and so forth. But as long as staff are kept accountable, and reasonable approaches are the ones opted, it won't be an issue. Because, we've had people like that in the past, back on the old forums. And we managed it then. We just have more folks to deal with now, but we also can get more staff to compensate. And there will always be folks like that, it's just a matter of ensuring that you maintain your standard and don't discard valid charges, no matter how horribly misphrased. Erm. I think that concludes this... What is it? Rant? List of observations? Platter of cupcakes? I have no clue, it's like 0150hrs at night, and I have a verbal exam tomorrow. Weeee. I'm going to regret everything. Oh. There is a thing. "Per Ardua Ad Astra" *nids* EDIT: Apparently it's staff-introspect night. Kids: this is what happens when the server is down. K? K. Quote Link to comment
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.