Disallow ghosts or those of the observer or in-lobby mob type from being able to vote for crew transfer

[Scheveningen]

The game centers around the people who were actually playing the game to begin with. If you want your voice to be heard in a vote then maybe you should've joined the round to play to start with.

[Kaed]

Calm down for a minute, the voting is restricted to currently ingame players, as in, people who join in later still count. The restrictions only apply to Ghosts, and people in the Lobby. If you join in, you get a vote. That means paragraph 4/5 aren't actually right. Also, some Antagonists have mechanics that literally depend on a round being longer than 2 hours. What are you saying to them? that they're shit out of luck? (Do take this as polite as possible, because you seem to have said this from the heart and I respect that.)

I'm in favor of this change, it's not about longer rounds so much as making the option of transferring up to the actual players and not the observers who don't want to take part in the round. You chose not to take part, so it's unfair if you get to have a say in whether or not to transfer, this is my opinion. However, that does change if you join into the round, IE: Using the Respawn function, joining as a Diona Nymph or Positronic Brain, etc. Going Mouse and Drone specifically to circumvent this restriction is obviously bad, but they also allow it ATM.

 

The game centers around the people who were actually playing the game to begin with. If you want your voice to be heard in a vote then maybe you should've joined the round to play to start with.

 

First of all, I'm perfectly calm. I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm writing while charged with anger, but I'll let it go.

Now, I've been there, in rounds where I sit around preparing for two hours then they call the shuttle. It happens most often during stealthy malfAI and cult. But I have always felt that was a failure on MY part, not the part of the server voting rules (it's also part of some inherent problems with the design of malfAI, but that's another thread), that I could not engage people enough people to make them want to continue. It's antagonist timidity and inexperience that is the problem there, not the evils of letting non-player ckeys vote on crew transfer. You tell me that it's not like I'm saying, and that it's just 'ghosts and people in the lobby', but.. that is literally everyone not currently playing who is logged into the server anyway? Is there some secret other state you can be in while not playing than ghost or lobby that I don't know about?

The only part of that I can even moderately agree on there is lobby voting, because they haven't seen seen the round yet. But, I feel like the percentage of people voting from the lobby is extremely low compared to the other non-playing minority of ghosts. Choosing to observe ghost already penalizes you by making you wait a half hour to play, it doesn't need to be further penalized with this excursionist mindset you are trying to push forward that they should have joined if they wanted to vote. A half hour is a full quarter of a minimum round time already. Many people observe just to see what's going on before they actually do join, or because they aren't sure if joining the round will be worth it this late on into it.

They are also composed of people who died in the round and obviously, a number of them do want to stop playing in the current round where they died. Except for the part in this logic where if lots of people are dying in sufficient number to sway the vote, it is probably code red, and you can't transfer anyway.

So this entire idea is based on the concept that those who did not join into the game at the start have no right to decide if they are enjoying the round enough to have it continue. It does not affect the vote during high chaos, because it is almost always unvotable during that period due to in-game alert level changes. And I think that the amount of people voting from the lobby is a lot lower than you seem to think. If a round is not interesting enough for the players to keep it going without cutting out the observers, that's a problem with the round activity itself, not the smattering of observer votes.

The only thing I could possibly support involving voting is cutting out lobby voting, but again, I stress that these are such a small minority during average votes that they are barely worth cutting out. Ghosts are still a part of the round, being observers or ex-players, and need to be given a say in the continuation of the round not told pithy things like 'shoulda joined sooner' or 'git good'. It's entirely possible to make a round exciting enough that observers want to watch it continue, and if it's that exciting, then the votes of the active players would outweigh them anyway.

This is a non-issue being put forward as a serious problem in an attempt to make rounds self-contained bubbles, that tries to avoid player responsibility to make the round interesting for everyone by claiming a minority non-active participatory minority is responsible for stopping their fun.

I also recognize that as the author of this idea (and those who clearly agree strongly) it will be nearly impossible to dislodge you from your position, because you want this. I've also been in the same place, trying to fervently argue my idea has merit in the face of people giving Different Opinions. Sometimes even in this very forum. But just like in those situations, maybe you should take a step back and consider this situation. Does taking agency away from a portion of the player base really improve things for everyone involved, or is a patch for a frustration you have had during a round or rounds at some point? Because this is actually taking something away from the game, not adding to it.

Reactionary suggestions should be considered a lot more carefully than ones based on actually new ideas, and you should seriously consider why you want this so much, at the expense of people who clearly do not.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Guest

[Scheveningen]

You misquoted. I only stated the second quote.

[Kaed]

Hey, you're right. Thank you for pointing that out. I have fixed it : )

[Dreviore]

The game centers around the people who were actually playing the game to begin with. If you want your voice to be heard in a vote then maybe you should've joined the round to play to start with.

 

Easy to say when you don't have commitments outside of Aurora.

If you wish to viciously attack everybody who speaks against your opinion - With the exact same reasoning every time. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a place to attack other peoples for their opinion.

Me and a lot of people happen to login and see that a rounds been going on for 1 maybe 2 hours. So we don't join because unfortunately, it's hard to join RP mid round. Now we have four options:

Join and not enjoy ourselves.

Leave and try our luck an hour later.

Vote for a CT.

Chill out in Ghost for an hour - Which unfortunately with nothing to keep ghosts engaged is not fun having to wait an hour, two, sometimes three.

I've given myself a window after work (that shifts due to shifts) - And asking me to waste 2 hours of my very short window waiting for a new round is not fair to me, nor is it fair to anyone else who comes here to unwind.

Let me follow this up as well:

"The game centers around the people who were actually playing the game to begin with."

This quote simply is not true. This game is centered around the NSS Aurora/Exodus - And the staff on board, doesn't matter if you're present right this very second, or if you'll be present in the next shift, your character develops while you're not around, so yes if I'm not able to actually join a round because of various reasoning's I as a player with developed characters in the server expect to have a say in CTs - And if ones called, and as a ghost I don't see any meaningful RP I'm going to vote for it so I can actually join a round and enjoy myself.

I've never called a CT before; and the reasoning? I can't determine if a rounds getting stale or if it's just my experience, unfortunately CCIA don't have aghost so I can't be everywhere during a round to see if meaningful RP is still going on.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Guest

[Scheveningen]

Easy to say when you don't work, enrolled in post secondary, or don't have a social life.

If you wish to viciously attack everybody who speaks against your opinion - With the exact same reasoning every time. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a place to attack other peoples for their opinion.

ok

Whenever you folks want to just drop insulting anyone that disagrees with you at every opportunity, do get back to me. It's difficult to have a real discussion when the people that oppose this feature all have the common quality of utilizing emotionally charged language displaying a quality of immaturity to deal with negatives of a system and try to work up to build up the positives of the system to outweigh the bad, in addition to the passive-aggressive comments to belittle and insult people who don't agree with you, and then the inaccurate blanket claims plus the false representation of how the community is seeing this work.

This was a test phase. If you cannot come up with anything more creative than "it sucks, it undermines me playing here, remove it, it is bad" amped to a square of 4, do not be surprised if I dismiss your concerns if you communicate in such an unproductive and standoffish manner.

SS13 should not be more important than your personal life. If you cannot make time for SS13 then yes, you should properly prioritize what matters to you. The fact some of you claim that you have social lives, jobs, etc, should basically mean that this sort of thing shouldn't matter to you if you're being sincere when you say you cannot make any time for SS13. That's just life, but I see no reason as to how you can blame everyone else because you can't sort your own personal issues out. If you cannot make time for the hobby, why are you trying to force it into your schedule? It is your fault if you cannot make time to play on the server, not anyone else's, not even is it the fault of mechanics.

I really don't need to lecture people to have their priorities in order. It's a given that people should care about what matters. But going as far as what Jackboot or you posted over such a non-issue is still really confusing to me.

[Scheveningen]

Consider the test phase worked exactly to expectations to prolong rounds by a decent margin, barely anything more than a half hour at most. And the only forms of criticism against it largely amounts to people who rarely play on the server as often, prior to this suggestion. I'm really not certain how that's a downside to the mechanic that is somehow wholly the fault of the new test feature?

And you deleted your one-sentence reply to me. That's fine, it just seems odd this looks like a double post.

[Felkvir]

Easy to say when you don't work, enrolled in post secondary, or don't have a social life.

If you wish to viciously attack everybody who speaks against your opinion - With the exact same reasoning every time. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a place to attack other peoples for their opinion.

ok

Whenever you folks want to just drop insulting anyone that disagrees with you at every opportunity, do get back to me. It's difficult to have a real discussion when the people that oppose this feature all have the common quality of utilizing emotionally charged language displaying a quality of immaturity to deal with negatives of a system and try to work up to build up the positives of the system to outweigh the bad, in addition to the passive-aggressive comments to belittle and insult people who don't agree with you, and then the inaccurate blanket claims plus the false representation of how the community is seeing this work.

This was a test phase. If you cannot come up with anything more creative than "it sucks, it undermines me playing here, remove it, it is bad" amped to a square of 4, do not be surprised if I dismiss your concerns if you communicate in such an unproductive and standoffish manner.

SS13 should not be more important than your personal life. If you cannot make time for SS13 then yes, you should properly prioritize what matters to you. The fact some of you claim that you have social lives, jobs, etc, should basically mean that this sort of thing shouldn't matter to you if you're being sincere when you say you cannot make any time for SS13. That's just life, but I see no reason as to how you can blame everyone else because you can't sort your own personal issues out. If you cannot make time for the hobby, why are you trying to force it into your schedule? It is your fault if you cannot make time to play on the server, not anyone else's, not even is it the fault of mechanics.

I really don't need to lecture people to have their priorities in order. It's a given that people should care about what matters. But going as far as what Jackboot or you posted over such a non-issue is still really confusing to me.

 

The narrative you're trying to play here is pretty fucked up. First off how can you tell if someone's TEXT reply is 'emotionally' charged? It comes off as you thinking you understand the message written better than the ones who actually wrote it. Second off, at one end you say people are using 'blanket' claims yet right before that you're accusing everyone opposing your idea of having the same 'quality' in the discussion.

You're just repeating what you've already made clear, that you're dismissing observers as non-players.. This isn't concerning what's correct or not, its concerning what you proclaim to be the right thing. Lots of people here disagree with your idea, does it bother you? I know for a fact you'll go so far as to say you'll lose any respect for a person if they don't subscribe to your worldview, so perhaps we shouldn't ask you to consider what others think and not sperg out in the process at the same time.

[Scheveningen]

Massive response to Felkvir, but otherwise I'll continue onto another suggestion.

 

The narrative you're trying to play here is pretty fucked up. First off how can you tell if someone's TEXT reply is 'emotionally' charged? It comes off as you thinking you understand the message written better than the ones who actually wrote it. Second off, at one end you say people are using 'blanket' claims yet right before that you're accusing everyone opposing your idea of having the same 'quality' in the discussion.

 

It's called loaded language. Whether verbal or written it is structured in a fashion to inspire emotion in the reader or listener. It makes high claims of inference based on half-truths without giving full context on why issues exist as they do. Example, "disenfranchise vs. minimize", "belittle vs. depreciate", etc. It's typically substituting powerful sounding words for typical ones in order to make a stronger-sounding point. Most people don't talk like that unless they're either very frustrated with something or intend on purpose to appeal to an audience's emotion.

I'm seeking to minor in sociology and I'm taking online courses, so it's not for nothing that I'm capable of seeing that.

But before you assume I'm claiming this is about people having an agenda, actually, I like to assume ignorance before malevolence, so it's easier to say people are a bit too upset about this feature rather than make the unsubstantiated claim they're pushing an agenda. Because assuming the latter without evidence is dumb, not all of us are here to be politicians. And really, that is all this is, people being upset.

When I say "everyone" in relation to blanket statements, I say the more outspoken opponents of this feature. I apologize for not clarifying that, and I apologize if it looked like I was also trying to encompass anyone that could possibly openly disagree with this feature as there are others who have made other viewpoints distinct from the most commonly voiced "I don't have time to play this game and this feature further undermines that." That's really nothing anyone can help unfortunately.

 

You're just repeating what you've already made clear, that you're dismissing observers as non-players.. This isn't concerning what's correct or not, its concerning what you proclaim to be the right thing. Lots of people here disagree with your idea, does it bother you? I know for a fact you'll go so far as to say you'll lose any respect for a person if they don't subscribe to your worldview, so perhaps we shouldn't ask you to consider what others think and not sperg out in the process at the same time.

 

Look, no, I don't get offended off of people's opinion, it does not bother me if they disagree. And you're right, I've repeated myself multiple times already because I've pretty much seen that people are raising the same concerns and over-complicating an issue. Maybe that was a mistake but I'm not going to resign to being wrong because people disagree. I do not feel it's right to have someone to respond to me without me responding to them in a rational fashion in return, because if I didn't then the biggest problem would be folks being concerned about me not caring about what anyone else has to say. With every fibre of my being, yes, I do care what they say.

However, if people want to get anywhere in a discussion (or argument I suppose) with me, then they need to convince me otherwise that I'm wrong without resorting to doubling down as soon as I remotely challenge their own opinion. People really do not need to resort to demonizing mere test features that hardly got off the ground. There are better ways to voice distaste with how features are planned.

Fact: Rounds have extended on average by 20 to 30 minutes longer than normal due to properly rounding out the proportion of being actually participating in the round versus those joining in a few seconds just to call for transfer.

(In some situations such as the station suffering from an unchecked blob or serious disaster the round ends around the time people are able to call a vote for transfer, because the folks on station want to leave, but this detail is more relative to exception cases where things do go wrong.)

Opinion: The feature is bad because it's actively stopping me from wanting to play on the server and it forces me to wait until the round is finished to rejoin.

See the difference? You can prove something has nominally taken effect from this feature, and no one has spoken up about a specific round case where nobody was able to vote for transfer to get a bad round out of the way. People were always able to do that, but only if those people were lead to believe that it wasn't worth staying for in the first place.

The problem of the commonly repeated issue that was raised is that it is not relevant nor the issue of anyone else if a certain player is upset that they can never get on to play 2d spacemans regularly due to their real life taking up all of their available time. That is tough, but that player still needs to be a responsible person. They're going to have a bad time trying to force Aurora into their schedule when they realistically have no time or available energy to do so. Sorry, it sucks, I feel for anyone who cannot fit in spacemans especially if they are friends of mine, but even I know my personal issues would come first over the game.

 

I've another idea if people do not happen to like how observers have less stake or involvement in voting to transfer the round and it would quell the same issues regarding observers keying up to transfer the round.

Instead of outright "disenfranchising" or "discriminating", in the case of observers and fresh joiners, they need to be on the server for a short set amount of time (10,15,20 minutes, whichever) before being able to vote for transfer. This bars fresh joiners for a set amount of time from voting to transfer as soon as they get on. However, just sitting and waiting for a short amount of time would permit them to start a vote and participate with absolutely no fuss whatsoever about being disqualified in practice to vote. In the case of lobby-sitters, observers or latejoiners, they simply need to wait 15 minutes (for the sake of example) and play a bit before starting a vote. They don't even need to play, they can sit in the lobby as well to do other things or they can observe until they know they can start a vote.

This holds more similarities to the previous system in not discounting the voted opinion entirely of an observer while still providing a minor security check to avoid the worst case scenario, the latter of which likens to what people are calling out the current system as draconian.

Also if you DC at any point in time it doesn't matter, you just need to have logged onto the server and stayed on for a 15 minute session on the server for that round and you can vote at 2 hrs.

"Well why should I have to wait 15 minutes just to vote?"

I don't know, really, why do we have to make people wait 30 minutes before respawning?

Because it's fair, I reckon. At the very least my recent suggestion clarifies previous issues in its execution. I figure those with grievances would like it better.

[Skull132]

SS13 should not be more important than your personal life. If you cannot make time for SS13 then yes, you should properly prioritize what matters to you. The fact some of you claim that you have social lives, jobs, etc, should basically mean that this sort of thing shouldn't matter to you if you're being sincere when you say you cannot make any time for SS13. That's just life, but I see no reason as to how you can blame everyone else because you can't sort your own personal issues out. If you cannot make time for the hobby, why are you trying to force it into your schedule? It is your fault if you cannot make time to play on the server, not anyone else's, not even is it the fault of mechanics.

 

Fair. Ish.

However also consider that we have the power to control just how much time is required to play on our server properly. This mechanic is one such control device. Which leads into this discussion becoming one of how much time do we want the average player to be able to dedicate to Aurora, in order to be a part of an enjoyable experience.

[Dreviore]

SS13 should not be more important than your personal life. If you cannot make time for SS13 then yes, you should properly prioritize what matters to you. The fact some of you claim that you have social lives, jobs, etc, should basically mean that this sort of thing shouldn't matter to you if you're being sincere when you say you cannot make any time for SS13. That's just life, but I see no reason as to how you can blame everyone else because you can't sort your own personal issues out. If you cannot make time for the hobby, why are you trying to force it into your schedule? It is your fault if you cannot make time to play on the server, not anyone else's, not even is it the fault of mechanics.

 

Fair. Ish.

However also consider that we have the power to control just how much time is required to play on our server properly. This mechanic is one such control device. Which leads into this discussion becoming one of how much time do we want the average player to be able to dedicate to Aurora, in order to be a part of an enjoyable experience.

 

I personally find the 2 1/2 hour mark, and 3 hour mark are golden.

Any more than that and you'll find late joiners not joining, and you'll have waves of people going into cryo.

I always login right after I get off work (Usually 6:30 PM or 9:30 PM my time) and if a round is 1+ hour into it I sigh and just close the client and depending on if I find something else to do, I'll check back every hour or so. I have a window of time allotted everyday to play games and unwind, unfortunately late joining in Aurora is not as flexible as it once was; at least for certain departments.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems others agree with me as well.

[Ornias]

Delta raises a good point about the player conforming to the hobby, and not vice versa.

But I'm still in favour of the old system. Make no mistake, there were incidents of the crew transfer being called when it was not desired. But the old system felt much better, and removing a large number of people from the voting pool seems counterproductive.

If I join a round that's been going on for a while, based off the characters I have, I'll likely not be able to catch up if I late-join. Thus, if a rounds been going on for over an hour, chances are I'm not going to join, and instead observe. I think that this is fair, I like watching the game and I don't feel like I can get involved this round.

Now, in the old system, that was fine. I'm not the only person that does that and, when enough new players are waiting to join and enough old ones are getting tired of the round/have defeated the antagonist, then a shuttle should be called. I understand that the game may focus around those in the round, but a vote must still be majority rules - if a majority of people want a new round on-station, then a majority of people will be happier if a new round starts. Not all of the are players in this round, but not all of them will feel like they can be, and want to play space-game as much as the next guy.

Now, you can say 'that's a personal problem' as much as you want, but that doesn't mean it's not still a problem. And when a large number of people start to experience this 'personal problem', it stops being so personal. Correct, it's not managements fault that not everyone wants to late-join, and they're under no obligation to help said players. They're under no obligation to do anything that the community wants at all - they're in charge. But I believe it's most beneficial if everyone currently playing spacegame gets a vote, because fundamentally:

You wouldn't have Aurora open if you didn't want to play.

Edit: Accidentally confused Skull with Delta. Whoops.

[Chada1]

Calm down for a minute, the voting is restricted to currently ingame players, as in, people who join in later still count. The restrictions only apply to Ghosts, and people in the Lobby. If you join in, you get a vote. That means paragraph 4/5 aren't actually right. Also, some Antagonists have mechanics that literally depend on a round being longer than 2 hours. What are you saying to them? that they're shit out of luck? (Do take this as polite as possible, because you seem to have said this from the heart and I respect that.)

I'm in favor of this change, it's not about longer rounds so much as making the option of transferring up to the actual players and not the observers who don't want to take part in the round. You chose not to take part, so it's unfair if you get to have a say in whether or not to transfer, this is my opinion. However, that does change if you join into the round, IE: Using the Respawn function, joining as a Diona Nymph or Positronic Brain, etc. Going Mouse and Drone specifically to circumvent this restriction is obviously bad, but they also allow it ATM.

 

The game centers around the people who were actually playing the game to begin with. If you want your voice to be heard in a vote then maybe you should've joined the round to play to start with.

 

First of all, I'm perfectly calm. I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm writing while charged with anger, but I'll let it go.

Now, I've been there, in rounds where I sit around preparing for two hours then they call the shuttle. It happens most often during stealthy malfAI and cult. But I have always felt that was a failure on MY part, not the part of the server voting rules (it's also part of some inherent problems with the design of malfAI, but that's another thread), that I could not engage people enough people to make them want to continue. It's antagonist timidity and inexperience that is the problem there, not the evils of letting non-player ckeys vote on crew transfer. You tell me that it's not like I'm saying, and that it's just 'ghosts and people in the lobby', but.. that is literally everyone not currently playing who is logged into the server anyway? Is there some secret other state you can be in while not playing than ghost or lobby that I don't know about?

The only part of that I can even moderately agree on there is lobby voting, because they haven't seen seen the round yet. But, I feel like the percentage of people voting from the lobby is extremely low compared to the other non-playing minority of ghosts. Choosing to observe ghost already penalizes you by making you wait a half hour to play, it doesn't need to be further penalized with this excursionist mindset you are trying to push forward that they should have joined if they wanted to vote. A half hour is a full quarter of a minimum round time already. Many people observe just to see what's going on before they actually do join, or because they aren't sure if joining the round will be worth it this late on into it.

They are also composed of people who died in the round and obviously, a number of them do want to stop playing in the current round where they died. Except for the part in this logic where if lots of people are dying in sufficient number to sway the vote, it is probably code red, and you can't transfer anyway.

So this entire idea is based on the concept that those who did not join into the game at the start have no right to decide if they are enjoying the round enough to have it continue. It does not affect the vote during high chaos, because it is almost always unvotable during that period due to in-game alert level changes. And I think that the amount of people voting from the lobby is a lot lower than you seem to think. If a round is not interesting enough for the players to keep it going without cutting out the observers, that's a problem with the round activity itself, not the smattering of observer votes.

The only thing I could possibly support involving voting is cutting out lobby voting, but again, I stress that these are such a small minority during average votes that they are barely worth cutting out. Ghosts are still a part of the round, being observers or ex-players, and need to be given a say in the continuation of the round not told pithy things like 'shoulda joined sooner' or 'git good'. It's entirely possible to make a round exciting enough that observers want to watch it continue, and if it's that exciting, then the votes of the active players would outweigh them anyway.

This is a non-issue being put forward as a serious problem in an attempt to make rounds self-contained bubbles, that tries to avoid player responsibility to make the round interesting for everyone by claiming a minority non-active participatory minority is responsible for stopping their fun.

I also recognize that as the author of this idea (and those who clearly agree strongly) it will be nearly impossible to dislodge you from your position, because you want this. I've also been in the same place, trying to fervently argue my idea has merit in the face of people giving Different Opinions. Sometimes even in this very forum. But just like in those situations, maybe you should take a step back and consider this situation. Does taking agency away from a portion of the player base really improve things for everyone involved, or is a patch for a frustration you have had during a round or rounds at some point? Because this is actually taking something away from the game, not adding to it.

Reactionary suggestions should be considered a lot more carefully than ones based on actually new ideas, and you should seriously consider why you want this so much, at the expense of people who clearly do not.

 

Calm down is an expression used when someone types a very large argument, I wasn't saying you were actually angry or anything, it was typed very calmly. You need to take take a moment to recognise there are other means of joining the round, you're only blocked from voting in the Lobby and while Observing. Just get in the round and actually play if you want to play, don't call a vote and take the power from the other players to finish their gameplay. Making excuses like 'The RP is too far gone.' is very farfetched and shouldn't be everyone elses problem, the thing is, calling a vote puts it on the table for the entire server, and blocks it out from being done for 30 minutes. Having a ghost do that every 30 minutes from the Lobby, tends to be infuriating because if you want to have a vote in that 30 minutes, you're also shit out of luck, because that impatient ghost who doesn't want join an ongoing round already did the vote 5 minutes ago, and it was refused because of their memery in OOC. This has happened to me a lot.

Longer rounds have alot of good qualities, too. While yes, some people play 'Just' for the valids as you previously said, (But they shouldn't be) Security isn't the only Department. Engineering has no reason to do repairs on average because in 10 minutes after a blob the Shuttle is called, with little to no chance to refuse. Longer rounds validate other Departments as a necessity for round continuation. I'm not saying we should push a new standard of round length, but using Active Player votes as opposed to Inactive Player votes is not bad.

 

As such, I can understand why someone might feel that the people who did all these things should be the only ones who make determinations on whether the round keeps going or not. But I think that's a fairly selfish mindset to take. There is only so much time in the day to play this very time-sinky game, and if all the people on the server have done all the things are are now just sitting around roleplaying with each other, cutting out the new people who didn't join the round earlier is just a form of exclusionism.

Don't get me wrong, long rounds can and should happen, and it's nice for them to happen once and a while. But they should occur because the round itself is interesting enough that everyone playing has decided by consensus it should keep going and the amount of approval by people in the round is significantly exceeding the people who just want to start their own new adventure. It should be a rare, special occasion, not something you encourage by trying to make the previously joined in-game players basically become a clique and everyone else who just came in can fuck right off.

 

Paragraph 1, you specifically say that you think only round-start players get a vote, they don't. You can join as a new Arrival at any time and get a vote and call a vote. You just aren't allowed to call the vote, vote, and Cryo. That was the misconception I was speaking of, and the 'altered state'. It's just a regular player that joined later.

Paragraph 2, i've had 'Interesting rounds' get shut down completely, and i've observed this, I wasn't playing, due to mass joiners. Especially now that Paradise-players and other servers seem to be flocking to Aurora, the concept of someone ghosting and voting for transfers repeatedly just because they didn't get Antag is also unfair, and that's to everyone involved.

[Skull132]

One more consideration.

If this goes through, I heavily suggest removing the 2/3rds quota. As they both attempt to handle the same problem. This change makes votes have a "heavier weight" so to speak, and as such, they should be treated more equally.

[TrickingTrapster]

Okay, guys, first things first. Calm down the attitude a little bit. Let's not turn this thread into an ad hominem pile of shit. We have received several reports of posts in this thread so please keep it calm and keep it to the topic, thank you.

Now, on to what I think. I think the new system works better than the old one. If the players currently playing, those who have a narrative in a round, feel that their narrative is still going well, the round shouldn't end. I think I've found a good comparison, sort of. If you let lobbysitters vote, it's like the players playing are a little kid listening to a story their father is reading to them. Halfway through the story their mother, aunt and uncle rush into the room, push the father aside and outright DEMAND that their own story be told instead. Sounds like a sucky scenario, doesn't it? Well the mother, aunt and uncle pretty much represent the lobbysitters and observers, since, to be frank, it wasn't their turn yet. It would have worked better if they slowly, one by one, entered the room, and added to the story rather than forcing it down the kid's ears. Such is the same with players playing and people in the lobby; If you want your own narrative to be told, don't force it down other players. Join in and add your own narrative to theirs. Don't force a hard reset on a good round just because you think all the good things already happened in a round. If you need antags to make your round fun or, god forbid, need valids to do so, in my opinion you have a wrong view of roleplay. We're a high roleplay server, we should be able to make a good story without outside sources. Antags are story helpers, not story struts.

Sorry for the wall of text but that needed to get off my chest.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

One more consideration.

If this goes through, I heavily suggest removing the 2/3rds quota. As they both attempt to handle the same problem. This change makes votes have a "heavier weight" so to speak, and as such, they should be treated more equally.

 

I can live with either system being put in place; having both would be beyond the pale.

[Scheveningen]

Instead of outright "disenfranchising" or "discriminating", in the case of observers and fresh joiners, they need to be on the server for a short set amount of time (10,15,20 minutes, whichever) before being able to vote for transfer. This bars fresh joiners for a set amount of time from voting to transfer as soon as they get on. However, just sitting and waiting for a short amount of time would permit them to start a vote and participate with absolutely no fuss whatsoever about being disqualified in practice to vote. In the case of lobby-sitters, observers or latejoiners, they simply need to wait 15 minutes (for the sake of example) and play a bit before starting a vote. They don't even need to play, they can sit in the lobby as well to do other things or they can observe until they know they can start a vote.

This holds more similarities to the previous system in not discounting the voted opinion entirely of an observer while still providing a minor security check to avoid the worst case scenario, the latter of which likens to what people are calling out the current system as draconian.

Also if you DC at any point in time it doesn't matter, you just need to have logged onto the server and stayed on for a 15 minute session on the server for that round and you can vote at 2 hrs.

"Well why should I have to wait 15 minutes just to vote?"

I don't know, really, why do we have to make people wait 30 minutes before respawning?

 

Evidently this was completely forgotten because it was at the tail end of page 6. This counter-suggestion addresses any issues regarding previous time allotment not being available to observers after this feature was put into its initial and imperfected test phase. This proposed system, if put into place, would be much more liberal in permitting anyone to vote as they please and it gets rid of any possible concerns regarding folks joining as a mouse or drone to break rules on intentionally circumventing the vote. No more will there be concerns in regards to whether the system could be abused because it would even require fresh midround-joiners to maintain their session for a single 15 minute period before being able to vote. In addition, an observer no longer needs to wait on the active players on the server to decide in starting a vote and the observer can vote themselves after the initial 15 minute period is done and over with. If one can't bear to wait 20 minutes for the round to be over then they never had scheduled time for SS13 anyway.

This is a high roleplay server with more focus on roleplaying actions and mechanics with more depth and narrative meaning to it contrasting with other servers that silently arrest, fix, heal or science things up because verbal interaction and immediate justification for doing things isn't required on the other servers. It is here, so as a result rounds tend to take longer due to more thought being put into carrying out actions, interacting with others verbally, etc. I am certain people would prefer going back to the normal 2/3rds system only being in place because it is a familiar and not-different system people are used to.

[Guest Complete Garbage]

Instead of outright "disenfranchising" or "discriminating", in the case of observers and fresh joiners, they need to be on the server for a short set amount of time (10,15,20 minutes, whichever) before being able to vote for transfer.

I like this better. I think 15 minutes would be an ideal set time for latejoiners, as it precludes latejoiners from instantly taking a round away from people while still giving them a voice after they've had time to consider.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

This is a high roleplay server with more focus on roleplaying actions and mechanics with more depth and narrative meaning to it contrasting with other servers [...] so as a result rounds tend to take longer due to more thought being put into carrying out actions, interacting with others verbally, etc.

 

Quality of roleplay is not decided by a length of time. Depth and narrative are not improved by making rounds longer. You have an incorrect method of evaluating roleplay.

A book of 600 pages of purple prose is no better than a 3 page short story just because it takes longer to sit through.

Your proposal is also not relevant to the conversation because it is not what is being tested. This exclusion of observers can be stomached by me if implemented if the old 2/3 requirement is eliminated. We can have one or another but not both, due to what I already said about slowly alienating a growing population of our playerbase.

Aurora is already a massive timesink and stretching out rounds will do nothing to alleviate any problem the server has. No problem whatsoever has been alleviated, solved, or lessened by this change. Players chosen to be antagonist who take over 2 hours to put their plans into motion will not suddenly begin utilizing their extra half hour, or extra hour, any more wisely.

[LordFowl]

Has been enacted. Marking as complete.