necaladun

This is one of the weird things about being in the MRP stream that we are, with the mix of L and HRP. We don't wanna be full milsim HRP, but at the same time we want people to be professional. Captains in clown outfits are too LRP for us, and mandatory uniform inspections for all crew is too HRP. A focus on being identifiable is good - but we do also want people to RP and express their characters personalities, and doing that with drip is great. A Captain who wears a cowboy hat is way more memorable than generic uniforms. Additionally for RP atmosphere, the feel of a 'professional' command staff is important, and any military outfit has strict standards on these. I don't want a list of allowed haircuts, otoh.

My general idea for ages I've never gotten around to implementing is to have the current 'assistant' job renamed to Civilian, with numerous alt-titles such as tourist, off-duty, etc. Assistant itself should be a seperate job with limited slots, part of service, with an SoP that requires them to actually assist departments if they're able to. This could then have alt titles such as Engineering Assistant, Medbay Intern, etc. Thus we can split the people who want 0 responsibility and RP into their own job, and leave assistant for people who want to help out departments in minor ways, and be a great job for newbies.

You're not debating in good faith. You're being obtuse and taking a stupid stance that flies in the face of common sense. And no, no one banned you from the discord.

This is so damn stupid. Being under the influence of drugs is evidence that you either were in possession of them, or were assaulted. You're also possessing the drugs in your system. This is a you problem, and you're being unnecessarily argumentative and failing to use common sense. IRL, laws are pages and pages of definitions. We replace that with common sense. And the most basic amount of common sense tells you if someone is getting high on drugs they're in possession.

IRL, if you took a tazer off a cop and shot them with it - you could expect to get shot with real bullets. Do this in a airport, even more so. Do it in a research base with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons on it that's a known target of terrorists, and well...you see where I'm going. This is also simply solved by not attacking the person armed with a lethal weapon. If you attack a dude wielding a shotgun, you should expect to get shotgunned. Or lasered. Or whatever. This is also all acting under the assumption that people getting killed is a bad thing that we should try to avoid. The risk of death when you mess with sec heightens tensions and adds to the adrenaline of the game. People getting murdered in violent conflicts with sec is a good thing.

Security are the 'defense' force for a corporation that employs deathsquads, on a station that has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The general idea of the use of force is to go one level above what the suspect is using. Hence if they're using stuns, you use lethals. Security shouldn't be honour bound to use the same level of force against people to be nice and give them a fair chance. They're jackbooted thugs of an evil megacorp. I don't see why we should try to decrease the lethality of sec encounters for people who attack them. If you don't want to get gunned down by sec, don't use weapons against them and run away instead.

@Spartan made his way out of the retirement home and is here to wave a cane at you all as a GA again.

https://paradisestation.org/wiki/index.php/Advanced_Rules#Silicon_and_Drone_Policy

Part of the rules say you have to do the role you signed up for. Protesting and striking is the opposite of that. Giving people "Some antag status" for starting a union will mean people will do it constantly for a free antag role. This is something the staff have 0 interest in for the server. It's only fun for the people doing it, not for everyone else trying to do their jobs. You can Ahelp for permission to do it, but there's no way this will be allowed automatically. It gets very old very fast.

I had half a reply written up but @Generaldonothing said basically everything. Small non violent talks of unions before have had NT stealth ops come in and kneecap people before, however.

Sure why the hell not. Good to get the data to see who doesn't give a shit. I think this will be fine and not too annoying, we can always change it later if it is. Hmmmmmm let's try other options first I think. @AffectedArc07how hard would getting better logging/graphs/etc for votes be? Other suggestions highly welcome - admins chatted a bit about rewards for voting and decided heavily against that.

If there really is a high demand for non-box maps, then encouraging people to vote more seems to be the best option. Not removing people's ability to vote for their preferred option. Forced pop-ups, sounds, a bigger icon, all that seem to give the players on the server the best and fairest choice. Removing the option to vote for a map entirely comes across as grossly unfair and the 'sour grapes' option.

With low voter turnout, then it should be even easier to switch to a different map if enough people cared about it. That not happening shows it's an incredible minority of people who want a different map - it should be pretty easy to get Delta voted in with such low turnout, so this just shows that other maps aren't popular at all. Taking away what is clearly the top choice 50% of the time seems quite wrong to me. Blaming it on people being 'conservative' discounts valid criticisms and dislikes of other maps. It's no surprise to me that people would prefer the map with 9+ years of work done on it. I can't remember the exact numbers or even where they are, but the tests we've run of other maps have generally shown a clear preference for Box.

The idea of changing things so that even if 99% of people want a map, it is only selected 50% of the time at most seems incredibly unfair to me. If enough people vote for another map, then that map will be picked.