Dumbdumn5

You know how to make some simple D&D clothing look pretty damn good, don't you?

Ah, thought you meant pods, satellite shuttles, etc. I'm fine with it being anti-escape shuttle, makes perfect sense.

Sounds simple enough, would just need a red bit on there and a few checks, I'd guess.

Yup, kind of sucks too, since, yes because, "it's basically the same executing, why do you even want to go there in the first place if you're not going to stick with it?", even though it's very likely that after 20 minutes you'll start to regret your decision if you've not got any entertainment or visits, so it'd be natural to want to head to cryo rather than stick about. Other than that, I personally love permabrig because I used to end up in the even smaller one all the time and had a whole bunch of fun messing with sec because of the arcade machine rewards, speaking of which, add the prize counter to perma, it's not fun holding a bunch of tickets and have nothing to do with them!

In every single sense of the word, yes.

Would prefer that the crew that did want to escape would still have the opportunity to escape, as they have that choice in most cases when they still want to piss off CC by completely ignoring them. 7-10 kinda doesn't see much play, mostly because when it did it lead to the AI killing off crew and crew killing off borgs just because a blob cropped up. It also generally got people absolutely livid at the AI player, because they either died or nearly died trying to leave, which, in general, isn't exactly the best thing to pin on them, regardless of how it was continually restated that this was none of the AI's fault, it was all how the game worked. I am not for Revolution, AI vs. Crew edition's return, as it might result in even worse situations on the front and back ends due to the currently discussed shifts towards lower RP discussed in the medium RP thread.

Skrek

Again, player agency is still the biggie, I'd be fine if some robot I killed got a reboot and remembered who I was the same way I'd be fine with a human being cloned and then being on my ass. It depends entirely on what the antag is ok with, the player is ok with, and if they're called to enforce it, what the admins are ok with. If you can remember certain specifics, like jobs, maybe areas, weapons they used, what haircut they had, or what type of antag it is, maybe a hair style or a race, then you'd more than likely end up with the same result that we have right now, although the random searches would probably be far more widespread and antags would have to put in a bit more effort into dealing with the whole murder bit by being ever so careful as to make sure they have an off-normal appearance when they murder somebody. That kind of disguising and careful planning is a thing I'd prefer be done out of cleverness rather than out of necessity to avoid somebody having a chance at recalling you. It also doesn't get rid of players knowing exactly who the antag is and being able to do nothing about it, they can simply read off what might be said in an autopsy report, give or take a job title and a hairdo. Anything less than a name is likely to result in the same tension, anything more than vague details is likely to result in the same issue of antagonists being outed. I don't find the sec chase uninteresting, but I do wish that antags had more freedom to deal with security in that respect. We already have made it clear that antags can take out sec coming after them, but often that's too late and security is too vast and powerful to deal with on their own without pre-emptive planning. I think what would do more good for the sake of the round would be to up what an antag is allowed to do in response to sec aggression and potentially allow striking to take out particularly powerful limbs of sec before needing to act reactively to security.

In that circumstance, that's the luck of the game, if they get found in that way, they've got a right to come back from near certain permadeath and attempt to seek you out.

That message is sorta doing the exact same thing as an admin pming them and telling them that, which is about as far into "forcing it" as we could go without applying bans for it, and to those ignoring it, that'd be incredibly annoying to deal with a chunk of text, and might make new players think that we enforce CMD in full.

The problem here is force."Force players to forget who killed them." "Force an autopsy to find out how you died." There's no mystery to be solved for the player, and therefore, nothing of intrigue to find out. It's something disagreeable and feels, well, forced. there's no rhyme or reason to having somebody do something that could take two seconds over the period of taking five minutes waiting for the detective to leave whatever case he's on, come over to the morgue, scan the corpse, and run things back through the system. While I do agree the detective needs some love, forced interactions aren't always the most fun for either side. I relish in players killing my character, it's something that adds tension to the round. The crew is being thinned out, an unknown or even known murderer is stalking the tunnels around science maintenance, and they're eliminating crew members who catch them doing their dirty work, and sec is low on grunts to send in to investigate. I find that more interesting than, "Who dun it?", and either having to go through the process of an autopsy by force of OOC rule or letting the case drop, again under lack of wanting to go through the procedure due to OOC rule. Forcing players to play a certain way involving death and such takes away a bit of player agency, something that, if D&D shows through here via gamemastering, isn't something that should be done without a massively significant reason (i.e. excessive violence, slurs that affect people out of game, etc.). In this instance, I'd much prefer that the player be able to control how their character handles death rather than restrict it over the occasional antag outings. (Be aware, I'm saying occasional based on my own experience with being outed and seeing people being outed by the recently repaired or cloned, which usually isn't incredibly often.

I feel that this may not change much, unfortunately. I rarely actually see people call out an antag, and if they do, security already knows who they are. An autopsy or DNA scan on a corpse that's been whacked by an ungloved antag is bound to give away the murderer. Having had this for a year or, at the very least, a number of months before, it was removed, as people were reluctant to follow it, and it was somewhat difficult to enforce because after it's been said, the information is already out there, so we could punish the guy who originally gave you away, but we couldn't stop the sec swarm from chasing you down and giving you the chair. That said, there need to be excuses in-game as to why CMD works or being repaired as something electronic without having taken brain damage is going to somehow directly influence what the character remembers. A common one is that the whole "you can't remember two minutes prior" but that would be taken literally and exploited. You could also say that "You can't remember the person who killed you because bluespace or something." but what if that person has been tortured for half of the round, and then finally gets killed, only to be found and revived. Should they be allowed to remember a full hour of the round prior, or can they not because that hour is when an antag was doing their business and it's against the server rules to give them up? I have a feeling, if nothing else, this would make tensions run high in a bad way. People would know who antags were, but be able to do nothing about it as they saw somebody obviously fall into their next trap. It's like watching somebody eat food through a restaurant window but not having enough to go inside. It might breed antag laziness, as they can get sloppier with their kills, so long as the gloves are on, who cares if the body is hidden from sight? They can't remember you, and that just means you can kill them again in a similar fashion until you're tired of stabbing the same guy and you end up chucking him through an airlock. It might cause people to become indifferent or rather ignorant of antagonist activity, even if it were more obvious, as the valid hunting rule points people away from the direction of acting on suspicion, and this mandatory CMD rule would cause those revived to be aware but entirely helpless when it comes to dealing with antagonists. This is more of a boost to antags in the metagame than the game itself, but I think the idea of more antagonist freedom and ability to do more, such as being allowed to sabotage the cloner, or attack primary hallways, or be a bit more active in preventing their objectives from being resurrected rather than stabbing and forgetting their recently deceased friend. Giving antagonists a bit more leeway to prevent the resurrection of their target is more likely to result in a similarly impactful outcome with the frequency at which I see antags called out by the cloned (Maybe 1-2 antags every 2-3 rounds. Suffice it to say, for reasons above, I don't support this due to personal opinion and prior experience with enforcing this same rule. (EDIT: Be aware that assassinate objectives aren't complete if a person isn't technically taken out of the round, and it usually resulted in more people ghosting and logging off due to CMD than would normally with the chance of being revived and remembering.)

Realistically hell yes, ICly, I've cloned everybody so many times that now I just crack jokes or, if I know the cause of death I say something like "Really? You couldn't have moved two more inches away from that axe?" Usually followed by a groan or a well deserved punch from the naked podbaby that has just appeared on my floor as a squirming mental mutant thing.

Ah, easy! Just clone them or defib them, the trauma totally won't get worse if you keep exposing yourself to it, what could go wrong? KILL THEM ALL! BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

Traumatized at blood? How often do you see people explode into gore! How's she afraid of it? Albeit the guy exploding is usually having a good time.

Best Holiday of the year.

Alice has shown up every time I've been called in from CC, that's for sure.

I was listening to this and happened across the above image as the music was picking up. I have the dumbest look on my face for no good reason.

Might as well be everybody's cup. (PS: Urk!)

5 stacks of condensed seal dust.

Ratvar looks pretty metal.

Six.... crap, what was it? Remember, I count as a player

Ey, my job to be creepy! That said, cool goggles.

Much of what I would say has been said already, although I would like to add on to a bit of the over-defined bit of the fears. One major issue with overdefined rules is that in the event somebody skirts the rules, but doesn't necessarily break them, they can get away with a lot more with a fully explained and definite rule. It allows the type of people who like to inch their way around the hammer and still grief while not technically doing anything where we could do very much against them, even if they were well known for causing issues. In terms of your suggestion, I believe the original wording is fairly accurate, as serious issues can often end up in murder, whereas the minor altercations should rarely if ever involve death of any kind. In terms of your outlook on the staff playing God and banning out of anger or for fun, I'd actually really like to hear who you've dealt with, as I've not seen much truth to that. In your appeal, which is publicly visible as it entered the Accepted section, you go as far as to accuse an admin of metagaming by utilizing the check antagonist panel to determine whether or not you legitimately killed an antagonist, which is part of the job itself. The main reason as to why you had been banned was that you murdered somebody on suspicion of enthrallment, which is a bit of an issue when there's a lack of solid evidence. I only bring this up as you seem to believe that the rules were stretched unfairly against you in a case that was purely or at the very least somewhat for the admin's own benefit. There is no ban quota, there is no karma for applying bans, and bans are not a measure of the admin's worth. They could have a thousand bans or ten and still be a good admin depending on how they act in regard to and serve the community while representing it's best interests. If you do suspect an administrator of being powerhungry or out for themselves, admin complaints are meant to be handled by anybody but the min being complained about. They may make their case or defend themselves, but the final judgement call is based on evidence and the opinion of a higher ranking third party in the majority of cases. I don't think that the rules need a change like this, as they've been more than serviceable throughout their time on the server, but I could understand a potentially expanded definition, though still as broad so as to keep things in leeway and fit more situations. In response to the arguments of cliques, internal drama is, as it should be, kept internal. There are a variety of opinions in the staff, to the point where a number of us are far apart from viewing things how the other administrator would. Some may give a warning where others may give a perma, and plenty in between those two amounts. Again, the issue was explained by the admin handling your ban appeal, although in less than verbose and relatively simple vernacular staged as a rhetorical question. I'm not sure that the ban was stacked in the admin's favor as, again, bans are an indicator of next to nothing when it comes to an admin's worth or proper judgement. They can be wrong, and that's why we have appeals and complaints. In addition, as you post frequently and provide a number of arguments in your posts, murder is not only reserved for antagonists, it only becomes an issue if done for minor and often inconsequential reasons such as "X insulted my friend, so I took a bottle of whiskey to his head, lit him on fire, and shanked him until he bled out so as to be sure he wouldn't mess with my friend again."

Yay indeed.