Tossin' blames

[Guest]

Okay. It's time for another heart-wrenching topic about the good Spirit of Aurora and all that good crap, so, I'll be brief as I can.

After another '8 pages of bloody orgy' in the complaints thread, hopefully people have vented out all of their inter-departmental frustrations. Was there any point to it? Yes, to some degree. Some people have enough self-awareness to identify themselves as part of the problem and fix their own behavior. Rest of us mortals, we stumble ahead stubbornly until we get slapped by a complaint or staff action. Then we get annoyed and say we are being persecuted. Still we usually refuse to acknowledge that the other party have a point, so, I'll say it outright; Most of the departments, even people, have been shit lately.

Security has been filled with edgelords and morons who can't distinguish 'detain' from 'search'. Department itself has once again stopped upholding the law and has, instead, become the law. Meanwhile, there are people who don't give a shit how many times you detain them or think that they should be allowed to do whatever they want. Some of the peeps over at engineering belong to that group. This is nothing new. People can say whatever they want about engineers being treated poorly, they are usually the ones to throw a first punch at a very minor provocation. Science is long dead. There are very few people that play it lately. Medical, I don't even know what the fuck's with medical. It still has many good players, but they are the only ones who I ever notice do any work at all. Seems that medical metaclique has extended to not just social interactions, but they jobs itself. Cargo and civilian? They are the only ones that have shown to always be welcoming to new players and seem to be doing good. Almost always full and functioning.

No, Aurora's still not dead. Yes, it still has cancer. How to remove the cancerous Element and who it really is, has always been a great point of debate. It is, however, in its core, a Witch Hunt. Some of you may not be from western countries, but I'm pretty sure you've studied European and American history to some degree. Remind yourself how fun witch hunts were, not to mention pointless. Maybe its just the new players failing to figure out the Aurora system.

So, why don't we just concentrate on a goal. Imagine what we all want security, engineering, medical, cargo and science to be, then work towards that goal. For example, start eliminating the shithead officers by trying to inflate the standards. Putting a ban on stun gloves. Decreasing the grip on science testing and self-testing. These are just a few of my ideas. You're free to disagree with them if you want, but they are not the point. Many of you have given their ideas on how to solve the problems. Many were rejected, some were accepted and never implamented, some were attempted but didn't work.

I'll just point out to this: NT Worker's Union

This is a naive idea, as if signing a fictional oath will somehow magically make people 'not shit' and like each other. Hell, most of the shitters in questions aren't even going to sign it. However, Jamini is on point. Just being aware that confirmation bias exists, should make us impossible to say with full honesty that we believe that we are not a violating party in any incident. We often really need to rely on others to point out our wrongs. It's what his idea, at least in my understand, tries to achive. A system of regulation and peace keeping based on trust.

So, once again, if you want to change the server, you have to change the players, not the rules. We need to start implementing solutions, work towards the goal, rather than constantly bickering over them like fucking children, because, it has been going on for months and hasn't led us anywhere we want to be.

P.S. Sorry, this wasn't brief at all.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Guest

[Jamini]

This is probably going to be a long-winded thread that ultimately accomplishes little. Much like others before it. That said.

I have no illusions that NT-U will be a magic bullet. It's not supposed to be. Everyone signing that is doing so as a player, not as a DO, Mod, or Admin. The most we can do is, as a group, stand up and say we will not strive to make the game unenjoyable for other players and gently pressure the people we play with on-server to do the same. Peer pressure is an gentle, but often underrated force. How we act is normalized with those we spend time with, be it for better or worse. Acknowledging that power allows us to utilize it to better on those around us.

I do like your suggestions.

-Actively working ICly to purge security of hostile players would do wonders for those that behave perfectly well, as well as for the image of the department of the whole. I have even noticed some experienced officers I once had issue with are no longer really issue-causers, due to both DO action and pressure from the community to improve.

-Removing or nerfing stun gloves and implementing other improvised weapons would also help. While I do remain an adamant user of gloves myself, and probably will for a long time, even I will admit they can be problematic. Cattle prods and spears are easier to identify as contraband and harder for engineers and other vigilantes to hide.

-Giving science room to breathe, and actively having command encourage large-scale testing at all levels, would do wonders for the department. There is no reason to be afraid of most regular scientists! Giving them some room to play and create fun scenarios would make Aurora much more pleasant for science players to play on.

[Guest]

This is probably going to be a long-winded thread that ultimately accomplishes little. Much like others before it. That said.

I have no illusions that NT-U will be a magic bullet. It's not supposed to be. Everyone signing that is doing so as a player, not as a DO, Mod, or Admin. The most we can do is, as a group, stand up and say we will not strive to make the game unenjoyable for other players and gently pressure the people we play with on-server to do the same. Peer pressure is an gentle, but often underrated force. How we act is normalized with those we spend time with, be it for better or worse. Acknowledging that power allows us to utilize it to better on those around us.

I do like your suggestions.

-Actively working ICly to purge security of hostile players would do wonders for those that behave perfectly well, as well as for the image of the department of the whole. I have even noticed some experienced officers I once had issue with are no longer really issue-causers, due to both DO action and pressure from the community to improve.

-Removing or nerfing stun gloves and implementing other improvised weapons would also help. While I do remain an adamant user of gloves myself, and probably will for a long time, even I will admit they can be problematic. Cattle prods and spears are easier to identify as contraband and harder for engineers and other vigilantes to hide.

-Giving science room to breathe, and actively having command encourage large-scale testing at all levels, would do wonders for the department. There is no reason to be afraid of most regular scientists! Giving them some room to play and create fun scenarios would make Aurora much more pleasant for science players to play on.

I know it's pointless and long. Most players won't read it and some won't even understand it. I don't know what effect it really is suppose to have on people, either. I just write this to vent out. Maybe that's the issue. This whole topic doesn't really have a point, like any of the topics before it.

Maybe we should like, really, really concentrate on action, rather then discussion.

With that said, I am hopeful that my point didn't skim over your head at least. Just a question, if you're aware that the stun gloves are problematic? Why do you contribute to the problem and use them, then?

[Jakers457]

I came here for tossing

[Conservatron]

maybe i'll roll up a scientist and try to get some of my experimental projects off the ground. I have a few, most of which will probably result in the death and destruction of the station and its crew, but some are more... subdued?

[Jamini]

Why do you contribute to the problem and use them, then?

 

1. They are a general-access means for the standard crewmember to defend themselves against bad officers. They are two sides of the same equation. If we crack down on officers who are outright bad, the need for civilian-based stunning weaponry goes down. If security gear receives a reduction in power, the need for civilian weaponry goes down.

2. I use them as self-defense, generally, or to break up fights instigated by security or not being resolved by security. Much like I would a standard flash on a non-security member acting up. You must also take into account I generally use them as a head of staff, who are permitted to carry weapons to protect themselves. (Hypospray, Protopistol, Energy Pistol, and Flash). An argument could be made that stun gloves are an extension of that. I have, in fact, had both captains and good security officers, state that they do not object to the CE having them. I've also had people object otherwise, but almost universally those are officers who themselves were starting shit and got beaten.

3. I do not carry them. I carry the components, which happen to be tools for the job of the character that uses stun gloves. Be mindful, in order to effectively use stungloves my character also needs to order species-specific gloves. You cannot make stungloves from modified gloves. (That said, ICly mangling gloves to use them has never sat well with me. I would order gloves that fit regardless if their ability to be made into stungloves or not.)

Ultimately, I can't support removal of them without a suitable alternative being added. Such as a cattle prods. Doing so would push the balance of power even further into security's court, when they still have far too much power on-station when compared to other crewmembers.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I have no illusions that NT-U will be a magic bullet.

 

Maybe what we need are actual bullets!

As in shooting the idiots! In the face!

It'll totally work, who's with me?

Let's do a witch hunt the right'n'proper way!

[Jamini]

I have no illusions that NT-U will be a magic bullet.

 

Maybe what we need are actual bullets!

As in shooting the idiots! In the face!

It'll totally work, who's with me?

Let's do a witch hunt the right'n'proper way!

 

No! no! no! NOT THE FACE! I NEED THAT TO TALK!

[Guest]

I have no illusions that NT-U will be a magic bullet.

 

Maybe what we need are actual bullets!

As in shooting the idiots! In the face!

It'll totally work, who's with me?

Let's do a witch hunt the right'n'proper way!

Blah, amature. We slavic peoples have a long tradition of burning witches. Have you not played Witcher? Current mad tech is flame throwers daused in water of holy Volga. It is guranteed to burn your local witch. Real men don't use bullets. Real men use fire.

[Frances]

People need to detach IC from OOC.

Anytime people get upset, it's because somebody is either carrying IC into OOC, or believing someone else is acting on OOC emotions ICly.

The default conflict resolution method should be to look at everything from an IC perspective until you have a clear understanding the person was motivated by OOC reasons. Otherwise there's a lot of fingerpointing and namecalling which shouldn't happen at all.

Case in point, yesterday's cult round. No one meant anything bad (cultists were motivated by IC acts, same for sec), yet people jumped at each others' throats in LOOC by making assumptions instead of trying to understand what was going on.

[Guest]

I have no illusions that NT-U will be a magic bullet.

 

Maybe what we need are actual bullets!

As in shooting the idiots! In the face!

It'll totally work, who's with me?

Let's do a witch hunt the right'n'proper way!

Blah, amature. We slavic peoples have a long tradition of burning witches. Have you not played Witcher? Current mad tech is flame throwers daused in water of holy Volga. It is guranteed to burn your local witch. Real men don't use bullets. Real men use fire.

 

Everyone knows that 24 karat gold .357s exhume evil from their possessed hosts.

Granted, they also give the host severe blood poisoning, but it's because they weren't devout nor holy enough to be able to live anyway.

[Guest]

People need to detach IC from OOC.

Anytime people get upset, it's because somebody is either carrying IC into OOC, or believing someone else is acting on OOC emotions ICly.

The default conflict resolution method should be to look at everything from an IC perspective until you have a clear understanding the person was motivated by OOC reasons. Otherwise there's a lot of fingerpointing and namecalling which shouldn't happen at all.

Case in point, yesterday's cult round. No one meant anything bad (cultists were motivated by IC acts, same for sec), yet people jumped at each others' throats in LOOC by making assumptions instead of trying to understand what was going on.

Very good observation. Players at the forefront of this chaos, at least the ones I've talked to, tend to spin the same story over and over again. Of course, it's almost always generalization of a certain department in an attempt to bring arguments or just outright refusal to accept that the other side might actually have a point. At times I fall into the same trap, which prompts me to get angry and break the argument.

However, I disagree that it's a simple case of IC into OOC. I've seen first hand how bad Security department has become, plus the constant pain in the ass engineers give to security. It's a little dreamworld of mutual hate only long time engineeing and security players seem to share, while bias prevents them from seeing the others point of view as valid.

[Guest]

Personally? I dislike department warring. I dislike generalizing departments, it does nothing to add to an argument and merely comes off as bitchy, incessant moaning.

If I have a problem with someone, whether it's a security officer or an engineer, I'm going to call them out on individual character/player flaws rather than lumping them into generalized groups because 'shitcurity' or 'gaygineering.'

[Cassie]

I am actually a bit disappointed you brought that round into this topic Frances as I find that factually untrue. Anyway, if you want to discuss why in PMs, I am open to that.

Hm okay. Secondly, the interdepartmental business is not "bitching" in any way or form. Think of this: If you recieve the same type of behaviour from a certain department over and over, and it is in a unique fashion from the other departments or something that can only be done by one department - that is not generalizing. That is commentary on a culture of a department.

This is equivalent to saying "British people like tea" or "Cats don't like water" it's not logically true for every single incident, but a consistent and analyzable trend long enough to be noticeable by people who have not even talked to each other before. You are still going to find that British person who hates tea, or that cat who loves swimming - but that does not matter because no person ever has lacked knowledge that they exist.

The reason people make commentary on departments rather than people is quite a reasonable one; people will get defensive especially when singled out. Their friends will get emotional. They will get emotional. They'll feel attacked because others are doing what they do so why should they be the ones who get in trouble. Yada yada. So I honestly feel like making a topic about the behaviours within departments is much better and easier, might I say?

It's also pointless to single out individual people because once they're gone, what's next? The new batch of people come along and do the same thing? Then people will complain about the amount of incident reports on the forums. The problem with this is prejudice, here's why I say that shouldn't apply to this situation is because if things continue the way they are, people will eventually become hostile anyway.

For example! Take myself. Everyone assumes I have a long-standing grudge against security, not knowing that I have played both head and sec roles and are experienced with them, a lot of my character's associates and friends are security, as well as friends on my byond pager whom I identify as excellent RP'ers (especially the ones I see as making an effort not be shitty).

On the other hand, I notice the same incidents happening within sec with sometimes the same people, or completely different people every time. It gets a bit pointless and I never actually push for bans but rather for "Make this behaviour against the rules unless x is an antag because this is clearly disruptive", which is really a sensible ask in my eyes. Especially when the behaviour that causes issues are not listed as things against the rules, and so on - how can you make a complaint against somebody when their bad behaviour is actually allowed?

I am also not going to beat around the bush and say "Some people in sec", I will actually say "Sec has a departmental issue" because I know that people who do not have the issue I talk about will not feel personally attacked and might actually feel as strongly as I do (and I actually know people who do) because the disruptive people are ruining the image of their own department. People come and leave and the problem will remain, there's no point targeting individuals.

[VoltageHero]

I want to address some of the things noted against Security.

 

-Actively working ICly to purge security of hostile players would do wonders for those that behave perfectly well, as well as for the image of the department of the whole. I have even noticed some experienced officers I once had issue with are no longer really issue-causers, due to both DO action and pressure from the community to improve.

 

I've always been a fan of true equality.

Okay, sure. Get rid of hostile security players. If you do that, you have to apply it to everybody else as well, with a hostile character. That also means get rid of hostile players altogether. No more Roy Wyatt, Phoebe Essel, Travis Davis, Lauren Blade. This is grossly unfair to a certain group of players if you want to change their behavior, and refuse to do so for the entire station, as I believe I stated a while back. I highly doubt that having a station full of smiling, passive characters would be fun for long.

For another example, why not get rid of all the nice characters, and have the station full of scowling, edgy rude people? The fact is, it's fine to try and fix individuals, but when it comes to the whole departments or even the station as a whole, it gets kinda hard to say "play this exact way".

 

1. They are a general-access means for the standard crewmember to defend themselves against bad officers. They are two sides of the same equation. If we crack down on officers who are outright bad, the need for civilian-based stunning weaponry goes down. If security gear receives a reduction in power, the need for civilian weaponry goes down.

 

This adds to the problem, not fixes it. It puts characters, security and non-security, on edge, when some random person is just running around with weapons, as a non-security member. Security gear is pretty balanced, compared to what some antag items can do. They shouldn't be so weak that people can just run away.

That said, security has been a lot less communicative than what it once was. There have been a good amount of times, where officers dump a prisoner into the brig with a random amount of time, and haven't told anybody else about it. It leads to people screaming at each other, both in the Security comms, and general, about some random person in the brig. People's records are being set less and less, and it becomes a problem for the entire team. This needs to be fixed, and it's not a character-changing ordeal. Players just need to talk to each other more, instead of being silent. At the very least, tell somebody their charges. Don't just throw them in a brig, and leave.

Heads of Security players are also being a hit-and-miss, it seems. There are a few that are good, and the rest either don't really know what to do, don't communicate with the team much, or have their main goal set to winning.

[Cassie]

Hm well Voltage, it's not about passivity. I actually don't mind characters who involve conflict, just as long as they're not actual assholes.

I remember one time a security member actually RP'ed security corruption with me. I loved that shit, masochistically and I don't know why - it engaged my character, there was no assumptions of my characters ability to roleplay and it was dynamic as well. There's a fine line and it's hard to pin-point really. Also, security have more power than average civilians so when they OOC'ly start shit, there's an uneven playing field to begin with. For example I pick some random person you mention - if Roy Wyatt decided to rage at me someday (this has never happened by the way, I've hardly RP'ed with him), what's he going to do? Cut the power? Use a pair of wirecutters on my face and declare war?

He'd get brigged. Dude, I mean, I find most of those characters you mentioned with the exception of Lauren are actually okay (though I know OOC issues have been brought up about them before that I really haven't studied) and I have not seen any of them deliberately go out of their way to hunt out antagonize people either and find a slick IC reason to get away with it - I think that's where things are different.

But overall, I agree with you in some part. All departments do need to fix their shit, but some do more than others. esp when it comes to the fact that Aurora's gods were fast to clamp down on telescience for chucklefuckery. So that's basically how it goes.