Staff complaint: Malfunction round 27DEC2014 ~0040 hrs

[Tainavaa]

BYOND Key: Tainavaa

Staff BYOND Key: Active staff of round

Known active staff: Sound Scopes, PumpkingSlice, Tablespoon, Jennalele

Reason for complaint:

I'm not sure what to call it, but I was accused of meta/powergaming by taking a medical hardsuit from EVA storage and redistributing it to the medical storage room. What concerns me is that administration is now enforcing what is and what isn't meta/powergaming more strictly than is even reasonable, while lending no ear to the community.

Sound Scopes informed me that if I wanted a "change" I should bring make a thread on the suggestion forum. However, this isn't something I believe needs to be in the suggestion forum in my opinion - it's something that needs to be changed from a staff perspective. I had the intent to start a suggestion thread about it, but I reread the rules and something PumpkingSlice said in particular (which I'll link below) that made me realize there IS nothing that restricts me from taking a hardsuit given the circumstances.

I don't have the beginning of the logs but I will link a pastebin of what I do have.

Evidence/logs/etc:

PM logs

http://pastebin.com/k0u1MWaM

What got my attention to bring it up as a staff complaint

Admin Developer PM from-Sound Scopes: It doesn't matter what you think, the staff have said no.

OOC: PumpkingSlice: tldr if a hint of metagame is seen shit is guna get slapt because it's been going on for too long.

The Rules

-No powergaming. Roleplay precedes over objectives - do not engage in behavior which would be unrealistic for your character in an attempt to win the round.

-No metagaming. This could mean using any knowledge external to your character (knowledge of antag types/items as a non-traitor, or knowledge of who is the traitor from OOC information) to give yourself an unfair advantage.

Pasted from the Aurora wiki rules page

Additional remarks:

As I've said in my PM's with Sound Scopes, I - as well as many other doctors - have been taking a medical hardsuit for months. During extended rounds, at deadhour, it doesn't matter; we took it. It is a medical hardsuit, belonging to the medical department; not any EVA department. The designated EVA storage area is not a MANDATORY EVA storage area, which I think is very important here along with the fact that we don't take a hardsuit discriminately - it's powergaming when I take a hardsuit only during a nuke round. It is NOT powergaming when I take it on a regular basis regardless of round type or time.

Especially as a head of staff, I believe I'm in the right for redistributing medical equipment as the Chief Medical Officer. If it were an IC issue, if the other heads of staff had an issue with it, fine, if people are going to bitch and moan about medical wanting to be better at emergency response; so be it. However this isn't an IC issue and it's a tradition that's carried on for quite a long time. I refuse to believe no staff ever has ever noticed (as pointed out by Sound Scopes) anyone from the medical bay running along to EVA storage at the start of the round to retrieve a hardsuit, especially when I was locked into EVA numerous times by an AI/cyborg or held up by a security officer demanding I get permission(which I always did) from a head of staff - and at one time, a warden.

And something I want to emphasize.

"... the fact that I still do this only shows that it ISN'T powergaming, otherwise I would have said "Fuck that, I don't want the hardsuit sucked out again".

PM to-Sound Scopes: Moreso, the fact that it was in the medbay storage has been a detriment and limited medical to the hardsuit that was still in EVA as a result, posing another challenge - I really do not see the issue, it's a double edged sword.

"... nothing against SOP restricting a head from redistributing resources belonging to that department... any doctor can walk into EVA. Scientists can't walk into robotics, doctors can't walk into chemistry. Different scenarios.

Admittedly I was pretty heated when I was talking to Scopes and said some things toward the beginning of the discussion that I myself find kind of silly but to make a claim with a shaky foundation and refute my side of the argument with, "No because we said so," is infuriating. There's nothing that needs to be changed with the rules, corporate regulations, or SOP to ALLOW a doctor to relocate a hardsuit; only permission from an authorized staff member, which in this case, would be a head of staff.

[Frances]

There's two things here.

1. The hardsuits shouldn't be taken out of their regular storage unless they actually need to be used. There can be a ton of reasons for this ICly, such as safety reasons, actually knowing where they are (so you don't have to run after half of the CMOs that steal them and stuff them somewhere else), or that they need to be kept in the EVA environment so they can get cleaned or maintained. Doesn't really matter.

What does matter is that from an OOC sense, taking them away from EVA to move them to your department /is/ powergaming. From a gameplay perspective, EVA exists for a reason - so that when a department other than engineering needs hardsuits, they go to EVA to get equipped. Having the hardsuit in medical does confer you an advantage, because whenever shit goes down, you've immediately got all your gear, and that's just unfair for other departments and antags, and doesn't create any interesting roleplay because there's no danger of going through the station to reach EVA, there's no possibility of being cut off through vented hallways. Medbay is already loaded and locked and ready to roll, look at these robust spacemen.

2. "If I did it only during a nuke round it would be powergaming, so I'm going to do it every round."

No. There's two parts to powergaming. It's immersion-breaking and it's unfair. Trying to find a way to justify it ICly does not make it less unfair. And neither does claiming there's whatever disadvantages to your situation such as atmos fucking over the medbay storage room more often than EVA. Because in most situations there will be a clear advantage in having a hardsuit already prepped in med storage.

Besides, I can't even understand it from an IC standpoint. If we wanted medbay to keep hardsuits in their department, we would've given them storage for it. There's probably no actual room for it in the storage room - do you really want to leave an expensive piece of equipment that could kill you at the slightest failure outside of its designated storage, and laying around haphazardly on a small counter piled up with other medical equipment?

[Tainavaa]

There's two things here.

1. The hardsuits shouldn't be taken out of their regular storage unless they actually need to be used. There can be a ton of reasons for this ICly, such as safety reasons, actually knowing where they are (so you don't have to run after half of the CMOs that steal them and stuff them somewhere else), or that they need to be kept in the EVA environment so they can get cleaned or maintained. Doesn't really matter.

 

It wasn't dealt with ICly.

 

What does matter is that from an OOC sense, taking them away from EVA to move them to your department /is/ powergaming. From a gameplay perspective, EVA exists for a reason - so that when a department other than engineering needs hardsuits, they go to EVA to get equipped. Having the hardsuit in medical does confer you an advantage, because whenever shit goes down, you've immediately got all your gear, and that's just unfair for other departments and antags, and doesn't create any interesting roleplay because there's no danger of going through the station to reach EVA, there's no possibility of being cut off through vented hallways. Medbay is already loaded and locked and ready to roll, look at these robust spacemen.

 

Yet I've had interesting RP dealing with people that didn't want me taking the hardsuit in the first place. Taking it in the first place isn't out of place for my character, especially given the circumstances. I've been separated from that hardsuit in particular and had to go get the one in EVA while also restricting medical to one hardsuit. There's good and bad that can come from it, it isn't taken "to win", we're a supplemental department whose goal is to save lives; sometimes it's an advantage, sometimes it's a disadvantage. But then, that is how the game goes and is the nature of roleplay and personal choice.

 

2. "If I did it only during a nuke round it would be powergaming, so I'm going to do it every round."

 

There seems to be a big miscommunication here. I don't do it BECAUSE of antag rounds, it happens in antag rounds BECAUSE I do it. Me doing it has NEVER stemmed from "playing to win," and I'm certain that much is true of the other doctors that do it. It makes sense for us IC.

 

No. There's two parts to powergaming. It's immersion-breaking and it's unfair. Trying to find a way to justify it ICly does not make it less unfair. And neither does claiming there's whatever disadvantages to your situation such as atmos fucking over the medbay storage room more often than EVA. Because in most situations there will be a clear advantage in having a hardsuit already prepped in med storage.

 

I don't understand how it's immersion breaking given how the trend came to be in the first place. I don't think there's ever been a time where having that hardsuit in the medical storage has been much more of a benefit beyond convenience. Convenience as in, "Well at least I won't have to take the trip to EVA." On paper, there is a clear advantage. In practice, experience has proven otherwise. Unless saving a minute or two from going to EVA is game breaking. It's ridiculous to claim breaking immersion and unfairness in our taking the hardsuit when you aren't exactly open to why I in particular started taking it in the first place. From the quote before this one, it seems you believe that I started taking it with the idea that I think antags need to get fucked; at which point a claim for powergaming is reasonable.

Tina started doing it to mimic Lockie, because when she first came to the station she looked up to Lockie. She thought of Lockie as a role model doctor and wanted to be like her (up until Lockie went insane out of nowhere and I never looked at her the same way again), and picked up the habit of relocating a hardsuit and a pair of defibrillators (the latter which has been replaced by a rollerbed for some reason; though it makes sense but I prefer the defibs because roots) because that's what Lockie did at the start of every. Shift. And it carried on, and was picked up as a habit. On a basis like that, I really can not understand how you could claim powergaming - can it give the medbay an advantage? Fuck yes it can, but why would we do anything to the medbay that would put us at a disadvantage? Anything you're supposed to do IC should be to help, not hinder. When you intentionally act to hinder or remain inactive deliberately to hinder then you're on the other side of the spectrum. You're metagaming because OOC you KNOW you can gain an advantage by doing something, but choose not to "because that would help me."

 

Besides, I can't even understand it from an IC standpoint. If we wanted medbay to keep hardsuits in their department, we would've given them storage for it. There's probably no actual room for it in the storage room - do you really want to leave an expensive piece of equipment that could kill you at the slightest failure outside of its designated storage, and laying around haphazardly on a small counter piled up with other medical equipment?

To my understanding, the station isn't fully setup to accomodate everything you want or need - as I stated in the PM logs, Skull pointed out that if medical wanted a second operating theater, bother engineering. That would be fine. But a second operating theater wasn't build into the station, so clearly you didn't intend for the medical to have a second operating theater? I don't think we should count out any possibilities because it isn't "stock". I also imagine it isn't lain around haphazardly, but neatly. If THAT is what truly breaks your immersion, then taking the rack would be in order which is not a big problem; that or having one built.

So far, a few things have had to be retconned with Tina; a few things from recent history, and now something that dates back to when I first even started PLAYING space station.

You don't want me doing something that benefits my department but also potentially (and has) backfired, you don't want me to be inactive and spark conflict within a department due to an OOCly conscious conflict of interest. The OOC restrictions on a crusade for a "perfect" Aurora are starting to get ridiculous. I find myself thinking more and more not, "What would Tina do?" But, "What would the admins be happy with?"

[Skull132]

You don't want me doing something that benefits my department but also potentially (and has) backfired, you don't want me to be inactive and spark conflict within a department due to an OOCly conscious conflict of interest. The OOC restrictions on a crusade for a "perfect" Aurora are starting to get ridiculous. I find myself thinking more and more not, "What would Tina do?" But, "What would the admins be happy with?"

 

Lemme latch onto this one in specific. I'm going to ask you to think with me for a moment. The environment that Aurora is trying to create is a heavy roleplay environment, as such, rules and regulations exist. There would be someone ICly, who catches up on folks doing things like this. And those folks would, eventually, get curbed or demoted. However, we lack this institution, and as such, as required to manage this OOCly. Which is what you are seeing.

Now, okay, we're coming off as too forceful in your eyes right now. How else could we do this?

Because you know no one is bothered enough ICly to pick up on these. Not even the IAAs, or the Captains. They just can't be fucked as of now. The second point is, when there's no one ICly curbing behaviour, it spreads, and eventually it becomes very easy to pull the, "Everyone is doing it, why are you yelling at me?" card.

Now, how do we solve this, Tainavaa? Because these are things that need to be enforced, otherwise it'll end up with the card I noted earlier being pulled on fun things, like Science making weapons, CMOs filling their hypos with CH, and so forth (I've had instances of both situations, albeit half a year or more ago).

[Frances]

You're cherry-picking parts of my argument while ignoring the bigger point they support.

It is powergaming. The gameplay state concerning hardsuits is that they should be left in EVA or their respective storage areas until needed. Here is a list of reasons why.

1. So people know where they are, and don't have to learn of their location every round depending on which CMO is on. CMO goes SSD or is unavailable during an emergency, and everyone is looking for the missing hardsuit? Bad.

2. So antags know where they are. EVA is by definition more open to the rest of the station than the storage room of medbay. If somebody wants to steal a hardsuit, or make hardsuits inaccessible (by raiding or disabling EVA), they won't be able to achieve their plans, or have a much greater difficulty doing so because medbay decided to be special.

3. Because keeping a hardsuit in medical makes you a special snowflake. There is a clear advantage to doing it (unless you're telling me there isn't, in which case please stop doing it for no reason and creating a non-issue), and having all the departments move their hardsuits to their own little corners of the station removes the purpose of EVA storage, which is centralization of a service and cross-department interaction.

4. Because it actually looks dumb, ICly. Hardsuits on a large, all-purpose station that have a lot of staff coming and going should be regulated, and not stuffed somewhere in a medbay locker (mostly for reason 1, but also because hardsuits are valuable, critical, and need to be easily accounted for). It's basically a breach of procedure, and not one command would easily overlook. You're not just here with your five buddies in an interstellar cargo ship that gets inspected once every 6 months - somebody will take notice and you will get in trouble for it. This is all obviously secondary to the real, gameplay-dependent reasons, but it does form an issue too.

So no, it's actually not in the SOP at the moment. But that's more an oversight from the SOP than anything else - EVA storage is a secure area, and it should be obvious that you should not take things out of secure areas whose very purpose is to secure said things without good reason.

Lastly, I have a question for you, in response to something you said.

it's powergaming when I take a hardsuit only during a nuke round.

Why exactly is that powergaming, in your opinion?

[Rechkalov]

Lastly, I have a question for you, in response to something you said.

it's powergaming when I take a hardsuit only during a nuke round.

Why exactly is that powergaming, in your opinion?

 

That would be powergaming because it would be the use of your OOC knowledge of the round type as the basis for your action, where the action would serve no other purpouse than to be prepared for the coming antagonists.

The Medbay doctors and CMOs don't, however, move the hardsuit depending on the gamemode. It's been a practice for as long as I can remember*, and is not directed against anything or anyone in particular - it's a precaution, such as locking the syringe gun in a locker which only medical staff can access.

*I can see that 'we've always been doing this' doesn't necessarily make it right, but if you really had such a problem with this, you should have posted about it on the forums and address the Medbay as a whole - not take an action against Tainavaa alone. This has been going on for quite a while, never with so much as a word from the staff.

Finally, the point many of you appear to be missing and which I find worth stressing; this does often provide for RP, as Taina pointed out.

 

3. Because keeping a hardsuit in medical makes you a special snowflake. There is a clear advantage to doing it (unless you're telling me there isn't, in which case please stop doing it for no reason and creating a non-issue).

 

Of course there is a clear advantage to doing it. But it makes perfect sense from IC perspective for a CMO to want to have one of those things at hand.

Finally, I think you're overlooking one very important aspect of all this;

even if we admit that this can under certain light be perceived as powergaming, it doesn't do any damage to anybody. It doesn't even have the potential of ruining other people's game, quite the opposite.

Unlike Science or Security, powergaming in Medbay will at worst result in people dying less - and that, in the presence of the cloning-thingamajig, seems to me a petty issue.

Anyhow, if you really feel this is so badly detrimental to the roleplay and overall ruining the game, I say again; direct your objections towards the entirety of Medbay.

Generally, it would be nice if you devoted a thread to creating the actual Aurora Regulations, because right now, it seems they come and go in and out of the play as you see fit.

[Frances]

That would be powergaming because it would be the use of your OOC knowledge of the round type as the basis for your action, where the action would serve no other purpouse than to be prepared for the coming antagonists.

Wrong. There are people who powergame regardless of roundtype, for example by keeping a superpowered weapon on their person at all times, even during extended (there's always griefers or people you don't agree with to shoot). My point is, powergame isn't necessarily targeted at antags, but simply at being super-prepared for whatever crazy ss13 happenings will inevitably befall the station, regardless of what the initial situation is.

So here's the big problem. This isn't an isolated issue - there's a lot of things people can do to essentially "take the initiative", that we could disallow or not (by making them against SOP or whatever). Building mechs, for example. There's nothing that prevents robotics from coordinating with a productive miner to create a Gygax for security - after all, resources are plentiful, and it'd be good for security to be "prepared", should the HoS allow it. However, the moment the same roboticist starts doing this every round, you end up with a security force that's equipped with a Gygax, every round. And that's, sort of not fun. (And don't tell me that this particular example requires a lot of conditions meeting that won't meet every round - that's not the point. The point is that other, similar examples can very well happen in practice.)

So, the question is. All of these big things that bolster a department's effectiveness dramatically in a situation of crisis. Do we let them happen? Or do we forbid them outright? Because I can see them making sense from an IC standpoint, but they don't really generate any fun OOCly. It takes just one well-prepared and consistent person to remove most possibilities of conflict in a department. Give everyone in sec the most powerful weapons research can make, or distribute the contents of the armory "just in case". Make combat mechs for sec every round, create superpowered healing pills and stuff everyone in cryo - because we can make more clonexadone. Set up shield generators to protect the singularity, bolt the AI's core or vent it, put the captain's spare and every piece of dangerous equipment under lock and key until they're needed. These are all actions that make sense ICly, and increase the efficiency of a department. However, a lot of them are already against the rules, or prevented by SOP somehow. Do we know why they are? Where do we want to draw the line? Is moving med hardsuits from EVA to medbay different from all of that?

[ZipZero]

As much as I love having one of the medical hardsuits easily accessible in medical storage, as it helps medical save lives, I see what you're saying. Though it's certainly not powergaming on the same level as science carrying around a whole armoury in their backpack, it could still be seen as a problem. However, I'm not going to metagame to put medical at a disadvantage. This issue really needs to be dealt with IC.

As any reasonable argument should have concessions on both sides, I support a change in SOP stating that the hardsuits are to stay in EVA storage until it is code red, there is a present threat to station integrity, or personnel must be recovered from a vaccuum (or, in the case of security, chasing EVA criminals). What is everyone else's thoughts on this?

[Guest]

As much as I love having one of the medical hardsuits easily accessible in medical storage, as it helps medical save lives, I see what you're saying. Though it's certainly not powergaming on the same level as science carrying around a whole armoury in their backpack, it could still be seen as a problem. However, I'm not going to metagame to put medical at a disadvantage. This issue really needs to be dealt with IC.

As any reasonable argument should have concessions on both sides, I support a change in SOP stating that the hardsuits are to stay in EVA storage until it is code red, there is a present threat to station integrity, or personnel must be recovered from a vaccuum (or, in the case of security, chasing EVA criminals). What is everyone else's thoughts on this?

 

Either we fully support a SoP change, or we do a mapping change that gives each applicable department EVA storage.

The easier option would be an SoP change, yes? In the long run, perhaps a mapping change would be in order for designated areas for EVA.

While there is a lot of debate over powergaming and whatnot, and is really none of my concern, I think a major point we should be addressing is how EVA gear is distributed to the rest of the station.

But, additionally, a little off-topic, but I feel it needs to be said.

Rather than just demanding change, wouldn't it be more prudent for the backbone members of the community to, rather than engage those that run and gun the server as they see fit, to suggest compromises or changes rather than make primarily aggressive threads on the matter that only cause more mindless and just utterly boring debate?

Seriously, come on. No one wants to read several walls of text on extremely obvious and stone-set matters. Let's try being productive and a little more level-headed with complaints?

It's better to have tried being helpful than never at all.

[Tainavaa]

To Skull: I would love for these things to be dealt with IC. I've had to change Tina's behavior on several occasions, I've had to change her age (which I also would have loved for it to be dealt with IC accompanying her behavioral issues), and now it seems I'm having to change her thought process. "Well... I WOULD do this.. but I get the most eerie feeling it.. isn't allowed, for some reason... I know it technically IS, and I usually DO, but.. some how... some WAY... it ISN'T. ALLOWED. Anymore."

If a CCIA or even normal IA had sent reports to centcom and their ultimate decision was "Yeah, she's not fit to be a head of staff right now, demote her" I would have been fine with it and honored it. Why? Because CONFLICT and FUN. Telling me OOC "that isn't allowed" when there's nothing preventing me from doing it - even the rules (as defined BY the rules anyway) - that just sucks away any sort of fun from it.

Taking a hardsuit for the benefit of the medical bay is completely different than walking around packing mad heat as a scientist, or filling my hypospray with a potentially fatal drug. Not only am I not doing it "to win" but there is a legitimate reason IC FOR me to do it. It isn't to stop or hinder antags, but to help those in need. As a doctor should be doing. It's clear Frances believes that I want it there to prevent any antag action, but on the contrary I treat antagonists and normal crewman alike indiscriminately; whether they're restrained or not because that's what a doctor should do. Do no harm.

To Frances:

-No powergaming. Roleplay precedes over objectives - do not engage in behavior which would be unrealistic for your character in an attempt to win the round.

1. To my knowledge, I thought admins encouraged conflict. First you're telling me that I shouldn't because that gives the medbay too much of an advantage, but NOW you're telling me that I can't because it will potentially cause conflict amongst the loyal crewmen. So far, this is what I'm getting from that message: You can not take an EVA suit because that would put the medbay at an unfair advantage. You can not take an EVA suit because that would put the medbay at a unfair disadvantage. At the same time. Which, in my opinion, changing something based on weighing pros and cons is a GOOD thing - no matter the outcome. Why? Because muh RP.

2. At that point you're metagaming because you're intentionally hindering yourself for the sake of an antagonist. Which is against the rules. No plan is without its faults and to foil a plan like that is an unconscious decision. It's an side effect, not the intent. Not only that but were there to be an antagonist in the medbay, they could STEAL it right from under our noses. Which would HELP the antagonist. I've had the hardsuit stolen before (though I'm not sure if they were an antagonist, some chucklefuck, or someone trying to help another in EVA.)

3. People throw the term "special snowflake" around too much without thinking about what it really means. A special snowflake wants special treatment; something different that others DON'T get. I'm not asking for special treatment; I'm asking for FAIR treatment. If other departments want to go off and store a spare hardsuit in their department, that's their prerogative; I'm not in their department, I have no say unless it's against the rules, against SOP, or against regulation.

4. If it is a "for real" breach of regulation, it's unwritten and I would LOVE for it to be dealt with ICly. It seems you admins don't understand that I love to have things dealt with IC. The thing is, it NEVER is dealt with IC. It's an admin PM, or a complaint thread. None of which are fun. Tina doesn't KNOW it's against regulation because right now, it ISN'T. If an IA sees it and goes "Whoa, whoa, I don't think that's allowed." And I tell 'em to fuck off, and they go to their office and rat to CC about it and come back with a Centcom message telling me that I can't do that, I'll honor it because it was done IC and dealt with ICly.

If it's not in the SOP at the moment, it should be updated and until it is, it needs to be allowed OOCly because right now, it IS allowed IC. Hell, you know what WOULD be fun? Having an IA bring it to CC's attention and CC, in response, goes "You know what? We need to add that in somewhere so it doesn't happen in the future" because that's how things would go down realistically. You admins love intervening OOC for IC things, next time you see an IA on, guide them with subtle messages instead of direct PM's to the supposed offenders so that way instead of interfering with RP, you're creating it AND getting what you want. You'd be having your cake, and eating it too.

It's powergaming because I would only be taking the hardsuit in an attempt to respond to a threat that I don't know about ICly but am well aware of OOC. I take it all the time as a precaution, no matter the round type; and it's a habit I picked up due to IC reasons that carry over from round to round, not simply "There might be an antagonist" which is the kind of mindset the rules are trying to keep at bay. If it's nuke, fuck it, it's nuke and I take the hardsuit. It's extended, fuck it, it's extended and I take the hardsuit. Right now, what you're telling me is that I can't help or change my department. Referring to what Skull said in his complaint thread pertaining to me, I was purely a reactionary force in the situation. And that was a big enough issue to warrant an OOC complaint. But now, the issue is that I'm not a reactionary force. What you admins want and expect of me are conflicting; make up your minds.

You're taking all context out of the term "powergaming" and changing it to be defined as "anything that would help you." There is an IC reason for me to do it as Tina in particular, there is no intent "to win" involved, there IS nothing in SOP or regulation preventing me from doing it. It isn't powergaming by definition. Right now, I feel like I can't do anything to help me or my department. I have to wait until things go awry to make any sort of changes whatsoever which is absolutely ridiculous, and interferes RP and fun.

I was told if I want something to be changed, take it up in the suggestion forums. Right now, there is NOTHING that needs to be changed to allow me to do that. Imo, if you want me to stop doing it then make something that PREVENTS me from doing it instead of stripping all meaning of "powergaming" and saying "Fuck it, close enough."

[Guest]

Saying medical wanting their hardsuit close at hand, so an EMT doesnt have to rush to EVA when someone is say, dying in a breach in science is power gaming, is kinda like saying chemistry making medicines proactively powergamey. Cuz you know, we shouldn't expect anyone to get injured or sick, so lets not make chemicals until the problem presents itself.

This hardsuit in medical buiss has happened for awhile, and I've observed it happen as CMO before, because I thought having a hardsuit ready in medical for our EMT's was a smart idea.

If we cant have hardsuits in our department, engineering and atmos shouldn't have any in theirs, any mechs, like Firefighter APLUs and Medical Ody's should be kept in the Mech Bay for whenever they are required for emergency use.

Also, Ffrances, saying moving hardsuits is rude to antags because they arent in the usual place, is basically saying security should be lenient on people they know are traitors. WE ARENT HERE TO PLEASE THE ANTAGS OR MAKE THEIR LIVES EASIER.

[Guest]

If we cant have hardsuits in our department, engineering and atmos shouldn't have any in theirs,

It's engineering/atmos's job to actively deal with breaches and environments exposed to the vacuum. It's part of their job to deal with harsh areas. It's not the job of other departments to deal with harsh areas.

[Frances]

Okay, it seems there's an even deeper issue here we're missing. So allow me to refocus.

Firstly, the IC reasons for this do not matter. We don't care about them. IC can be changed, rewritten, whatever. IC comes after gameplay. We also don't care about who has been doing what for how long. Good? Good. Now, moving on.

Difficulty. What not giving each department all of their gear in one place does is create difficulty. Complexity. Think of a situation, in a film or a game. Our hero is on a spaceship, and there's a breach. They have to go retrieve a spacesuit - but - spacesuit storage is allll the way across the ship, forcing the hero to go through an entire trek of dangers and hazards. Alternatively: our hero happens to have a spacesuit on hand. They immediately proceed to save the day.

Now, which one of these situations is the most interesting, from a narrative, /and/ gameplay perspective? The one where you actually spend time getting shit done, or the one where everything's done for you, you press a button, and then that's it?

And I really hate this term, but this is what I'm going to call "forced" difficulty. And not the bad kind, like enemies having bigger health bars or your attacks doing less damage. This is the narrative, being constructed in a certain arbitrary way, that serves as an obstacle for our hero to overcome.

Another example of this would be the armory. Why not give everyone the best guns right away? You can make up a bunch of IC excuses, such as safety reasons, that they could get lost (how often do you actually see a sec officer misplacing their taser?), or whatever else you can come up with. The fact is these reasons do not matter. What matters is that if you gave everyone the best guns right off the bat, all fights would be over right quick and it wouldn't give the antags a chance to spur conflict. (Oh, that guy has a lethal firearm? No need to retreat, let me shoot right back at them with my equally lethal firearm I was wise enough to equip for such a situation).

These limits, again, are arbitrary. It's up to us, designers of the game (because I think the community as a whole has a say in how our game is designed), to decide where we want to add difficulty and where we don't. And so, I propose we turn this discussion into one about that. From a gameplay perspective, do we want to enforce a limit on hardsuit usage?

As far as IC reasons, for now, let's go with the idea that EVA storage is hardsuit-armory. They're kept there for accountability, maintenance, and easy centralized access.

[Tainavaa]

Experience has already proven that isn't always the case, though. At that point it's not a matter of difficulty, but as stated before, weighing pros and cons. It's not like we're carrying the hardsuit around in a bag of holding - your arguments have had clear-cut and well-grounded counterarguments that have already manifested itself IN the gameplay. At that point, you're not doing it for the sake of "forced difficulty" but actually restrict possible outcomes that COULD happen. It's like a guided story. It's, "Oh, I know what's going to happen here," not, "Well shit, that didn't work out as planned." Which could be the case for any antagonist or benevolent doctor - and HAS been the case on the doctor's side multiple times.

On another note, making the armory equivalence is just like making the chemistry/robotics equivalence. They don't equate at all. They're different situations. Officers would be walking around with their weapons stowed away, ready to take out of their bag at a moment's notice. The doctor still has to go back to the medbay storage which may or may not be compromised. You're not going to reach into your bag for a gun to realize gremlins invaded it and decided to worship your rifle as an omnipotent idol whom they'd gladly give their lives defending. It's going to be there, ready for the taking without adversity from anything save for being incapacitated - which is something that stops anyone from doing anything, really.

Update: Also pointing out from one of my earliest posts, easier access to the medical bay to that particular hardsuit ALSO means easier access to antagonistic medical personnel as well as anyone that happens to be in the medical bay during a crisis; they could just as well steal it right from under our noses should we be distracted with triage.

[Jboy2000000]

Since there is nothing IC saying anything like that, yet, Id bote to keep it that way. Im all for medical bringing a hardsuit to medical, I don't in any way, shape or form see it as powergame-y. For the trouble of "keeping it clean" thats why I always, ICly, put the hardsuits inside one of the biohazard closet. If those things are tight enough keep airborne contaminants away from out suits, it should be tight enough to keep dirt and other debris away from hardsuits.

[Skull132]

Since there is nothing IC saying anything like that, yet, Id bote to keep it that way. Im all for medical bringing a hardsuit to medical, I don't in any way, shape or form see it as powergame-y. For the trouble of "keeping it clean" thats why I always, ICly, put the hardsuits inside one of the biohazard closet. If those things are tight enough keep airborne contaminants away from out suits, it should be tight enough to keep dirt and other debris away from hardsuits.

 

I hate this argument. Corporate Regulation, article i102, Petty Theft, reads as following:

 

To take items from areas one does not have access to, or to take items belonging to others or the station as a whole.

 

Keeping items which are in short supply where they belong is what is important here. A doctor who takes all the surgical tools and hides them still commits theft, even though he had access. Items can include anything from toolboxes to metal to insulated gloves. Remember to take the items away from them and return them to where they stole them.

 

You are privatizing equipment that is in limited supply. Yes, you are not keeping them on your person, however, I would argue that you are privatizing the knowledge of their location, by moving them away from the publically known, and otherwise designated location.

Now, to prove a point. If I was to move an armoury locker away from the armoury, how many HoS's and Captains would get in my face, and charge me with grand theft? Most all of them. Because I am effectively committing all of those things. Yes, you can say that the core of the matter is different, because I'm moving lethal weaponry and not life-saving equipment, however, I would say that the core is the same, just the nuances are different. Here is my perspective: Quicker access to weaponry lowers the response time of my troops, and as such, they can be potentially life-saving. So we're both now talking about the relocation of life-saving equipment, right? Right.

Now, why would I be arrested, and why should all of medical who do this also be arrested? Because I am creating a situation where standard equipment is held in a non-standard location.

Why is this bad? Because it creates the potential for the following situation to emerge: a dude joins, no one tells him where things are, he dies because he can't find them.

What you, JBoy, are doing, is rules-lawyering. It's not pleasant, and if you want to pick up this fight, then let me show you how twisted the Corporate Regulations can actually be, if properly and fully enforced.

Now, back on topic, yes, you've said this, Tainavaa. That it has both pros and cons, and whatnot. But here's the thing, the one thing that gets me: there are no repercussions for violations like this. I can make a bet with myself, that if I was to join as Captain, catch your CMO or any other doctor doing this, and write them up, then nothing would happen. Well, perhaps the only thing that would happen is you actually stop doing it, but as it stands, I don't know if I can be even certain in that. Perhaps we've burnt too many bridges, due to both of our actions over certain topics, but we need to figure something out here.

I have no issue with you complaining over the following things:

• Feeling singled out by the admin staff
• The way Soundscopes handled the issue
  
• The way Pumpkingslice handled the issue

 

I'm completely fine with discussing those matters, because they are important, and need to be discussed.

But what irks me is the fact that, as far as I'm tracking, we're just continuing the argument that started over AHelps. Is there a point in making a big fuss over the core message of, "Moving RIGs from EVA storage, unless circumstances that actually require such preparation exist, is frowned upon, if not prohibited"? To clarify: the way the message was carried is not nice, and ought to be looked at, but the message itself should be understood and not rules-lawyered over.

And here comes the ultimate reason why: setting a precedence. If we allow this, then we force ourselves into a position where we need to allow other activities like this as well. To include security moving their hardsuits, which would then render EVA as a place completely obsolete. Followed by science hoarding voidsuits and normal softsuits. All of these arguments would rise up, to the same exact degree, except they would have one extra card to pull: "Well, you let medical do this, so, why can't we?"

At some point, we need to draw the line. And my personal wish is to draw the line here, and now, for all of the reasons detailed above.

[Tainavaa]

Skull, the way you present the issue with taking a hardsuit is a very logical one and definitely one that I can understand. The baseless notion of meta/powergaming, however, is a real issue to me. I don't care if I wasn't formally warned or didn't have any notes added to my CKey, the authoritarian behavior of the admins is what pissed me off.

 

...I have no issue with you complaining over the following things:

Feeling singled out by the admin staff

The way Soundscopes handled the issue

The way Pumpkingslice handled the issue

... But what irks me is the fact that, as far as I'm tracking, we're just continuing the argument that started over AHelps. Is there a point in making a big fuss over the core message of, "Moving RIGs from EVA storage, unless circumstances that actually require such preparation exist, is frowned upon, if not prohibited"? To clarify: the way the message was carried is not nice, and ought to be looked at, but the message itself should be understood and not rules-lawyered over.

 

These are all underlying issues that led me to believe a staff complaint was in order, however my main concern with this particular thread IS the restriction on the hardsuits. And yes, it is something that matters because before Frances decided to turn the discussion away from the idea of powergaming = helping yourself/your department, it tied in directly to my statement about authoritarian behavior.

 

... if I was to join as Captain, catch your CMO or any other doctor doing this, and write them up, then nothing would happen. Well, perhaps the only thing that would happen is you actually stop doing it, but as it stands, I don't know if I can be even certain in that. Perhaps we've burnt too many bridges, due to both of our actions over certain topics...

 

My thing about this in particular, is the idea that, well... Have you even tried to deal with her IC? To my knowledge, all you've done about Tina was complain in teamspeak and pick at every little thing she does behind my back and subtly hinted at your distaste for her in dead chat or OOC until the complaint thread came up. No incident report on her neglect of duty, no consecutive IA investigations; just a thread complaining about IC circumstances in an attempt to invalidate a completely legitimate character. Further signs, reinforced with the "burning too many bridges" statement only confirms the dread I feel when I play any character while you're online - especially ghosting - thinking, "Fuck, what's he going to add to his complaint-tally today?" This discussion, however, is a private one that doesn't belong in this thread and I decided to leave it previously because I thought, "Well, if he doesn't like it, fuck 'em. I'm going to play her anyway." However with this being brought up, I feel it's probably time to finally talk about it. With that, I'll send you a forum PM.

On the topic of hardsuit restriction:

Yes, it does matter. It has historical and sentimental tie-ins with Tina and I feel that Tina should have an IC reason to stop rather than "because the almighty gods dictated that part of her life/brain is suddenly gone". However, you make a completely valid point on the idea of theft but I feel that I have a solid counterpoint.

All items that you didn't bring with you to work belong to the station. The medical hardsuits however, are in a subcategory on the station being medical equipment. It is an item belonging to the medical department in particular. I feel that any Chief Medical Officer has the right to re-organize and redistribute equipment according to their own personal standard - being overridden by the Captain/Centcom of course - and keeping redistribution within safety/station standards; that is, chem masters are not to leave the chemistry lab, etc. It isn't theft at that point but reorganization. When taking a hardsuit from the EVA storage, it doesn't make it obsolete; there is the extra hardsuit there and I feel at least one hardsuit belongs there for storage.

On things like science wanting to hoard all soft/voidsuits; why? Situational awareness. If a captain felt that it would be acceptable for medical or security to take a hardsuit (both of which have valid reasons for doing so) then they'd be free to disallow others because you understand (or SHOULD understand) the acceptable redistribution of such equipment. Which, in my opinion, is part of the game; dealing with those situations accordingly. If you wanted to let security take one because they might have to go EVA in a hurry but not let medical take one because you feel the storage conditions are insufficient - while security has an armory - then you might get flak from Tina but OOC I'd be completely okay with that.

In that situation where a captain disallows it, then that means situations and conditions change from captain to captain; crew to crew. Just like in the Army(the equivalence being NanoTrasen), there are set standards to follow; however in each smaller organization(being NSS Aurora), there are individual standards (Standard Operating Procedures) that aren't covered by the parent organization. Each standard is set differently by each leader; I've had commander changes in my unit. With that, came a change in standard (not necessarily pertaining to SOP). Likewise, when there is a different captain on board, one might understand the reasoning and say "I understand. You can keep the hardsuit where you see fit." and tell other people no because THOSE people simply want to hoard them. Science has no valid reason for storing more suits than they already have, unless an immediate situation called for it. Another captain might say, "No because everyone will want to hoard them," and that's fine too. Different leaders, different standards.

Until CentCom is notified and they go, "You know what? We REALLY don't like this idea," and make an explicit and permanent change to Aurora's SOP restricting storage of hardsuits, then I feel it should be allowed at the corresponding head's (superceded by the captain's) discretion.

EDIT: It came to my attention your example of a surgeon hiding surgical supplies. Another situation that doesn't apply here. The only similarity is that a doctor is relocating medical equipment; however it also states in corporate regulations that INTENT IS IMPORTANT. Hiding the surgical supplies only works to hinder the doctors. Relocating a hardsuit only works to help. So thinking back on it, maybe the theft point isn't all that valid. After all, a head does by all means have the right to change things like that.

[Skull132]

Likewise, when there is a different captain on board, one might understand the reasoning and say "I understand. You can keep the hardsuit where you see fit." and tell other people no because THOSE people simply want to hoard them. Science has no valid reason for storing more suits than they already have, unless an immediate situation called for it. Another captain might say, "No because everyone will want to hoard them," and that's fine too. Different leaders, different standards.

 

Per standard operation, medical is not expected to go EVA. Which is why "understanding" this goes into the realm of powergaming, even if slightly. Even a realistic analysis of non-standard situations showcases that medical will rarely go EVA.

Regardless, my piece here is done, and I'm working on something else to manage the issue. I'm done with having long frackars about topics like this, at least in conditions such as this. I popped into this one to just null the argument that we don't already have regs marginally denying this (note that majority, if not all EVA equipment is kept in a 'SECURE' area, any relocation from there, Grand Theft becomes applicable; further more, majority EVA gear is actually specifically noted as subject to the article of Grand Theft).

In general, and with fear of undermining FFrances slightly, I plan on disregarding the IC bit of this complaint, and using a more constructive method to resolve this issue, and issues alike this pertaining to Command. We'll see how this goes.

Also, I look forward to seeing that PM, Tainavaa. Contrary to belief, I actually enjoy sorting out issues, and discussing them. So please, feel free to.

[Tainavaa]

It's the principle of the matter, Skull.

With that, I'll leave this:

Grand Theft - To steal items that are dangerous, of a high value, or a sensitive nature.

steal

stēl/

verb

verb: steal; 3rd person present: steals; past tense: stole; gerund or present participle: stealing; past participle: stolen

1.

take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

"thieves stole her bicycle"

synonyms: purloin, thieve, take, take for oneself, help oneself to, loot, pilfer, run off with, abscond with, carry off, shoplift; More

embezzle, misappropriate;

informalwalk off with, rob, swipe, snatch, nab, rip off, lift, “liberate”, “borrow”, filch, pinch, heist;

informalnick;

formalpeculate

"the burglars stole a fax machine"

theft, thieving, thievery, robbery, larceny, burglary, shoplifting, pilfering, pilferage, looting, misappropriation;

embezzlement;

formalpeculation

"he was convicted of stealing"

dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own.

"accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying"

synonyms: plagiarize, copy, pass off as one's own, pirate, poach, borrow; More

informalrip off, lift, pinch, crib;

informalnick

"his work was stolen by his tutor"

take the opportunity to give or share (a kiss) when it is not expected or when people are not watching.

"he was allowed to steal a kiss in the darkness"

synonyms: snatch, sneak, get stealthily/surreptitiously

"he stole a kiss"

(in various sports) gain (an advantage, a run, or possession of the ball) unexpectedly or by exploiting the temporary distraction of an opponent.

Baseball

(of a base runner) advance safely to (the next base) by running to it as the pitcher begins the delivery.

"Rickey stole third base"

2.

move somewhere quietly or surreptitiously.

"he stole down to the kitchen"

synonyms: creep, sneak, slink, slip, slide, glide, tiptoe, sidle, edge

"he stole out of the room"

And to support the second definition:

sur·rep·ti·tious

ˌsərəpˈtiSHəs/

adjective

adjective: surreptitious

kept secret, especially because it would not be approved of.

[Skull132]

And I can use the argument, "It's the principal of the matter," very easily to say that Grand Theft is applicable here. Law does not abide by dictionary definition.

In the end, everything is subjective, and thus, everything is permitted.

[Tainavaa]

And thus, situational and dependent on crew and leadership. Which only supports my argument.

[Skull132]

Until things are cleared up, I already stated, I'm fine with discarding this engagement.

But do note, things will be cleared up. Which is the reason behind the new subforum you should be seeing, as well. The development of issues like this, in a mixed IC-OOC fashion. To include the development and enforcement of the, until now, disregarded SOP.

[Chaznoodles]

I'd say, as a head of staff, you have the right to redistribute equipment which is destined for use by your department. In this case, I feel that it was blown out of proportion, and did not need to be questioned. RP is supposed to be fun as another character, and restricting things like this prevents that fun from being fully realised.

[Tainavaa]

My thoughts exactly, Chaz. However I feel that it's been brought up as a result of me being a quarry rather than a legitimate gameplay concern, which is why I decided to fight for the right to have some autonomous fun in game. Because really, this is just dumb.

[Skull132]

I'd say, as a head of staff, you have the right to redistribute equipment which is destined for use by your department. In this case, I feel that it was blown out of proportion, and did not need to be questioned. RP is supposed to be fun as another character, and restricting things like this prevents that fun from being fully realised.

 

My thoughts exactly, Chaz. However I feel that it's been brought up as a result of me being a quarry rather than a legitimate gameplay concern, which is why I decided to fight for the right to have some autonomous fun in game. Because really, this is just dumb.

 

I'm glad we can agree on this.

So how about we refer to my original reply on the first page, and focus on the actual issue present, with the antics about gameplay placed on the sidelines. Why do you feel like you have been selected as a quarry? Or would you prefer to discuss this over some other means? At which point, I would recommend PM-ing FFrances with full details, or establishing some other form of dialogue with her.