Annie

Name: Klara Rio Commendation: Medal of Bravery Reason: Extreme bravery in the face of death. Actions leading to Commendation: Klara Rio, as blueshield, took on a ling single handedly after revealing the person to be one. The only reason we were able to take down this ling is becuase of her reveal and her sacrifice of her life in the face of this ling, even though she was severely outmatched by a changelings abilities in a 1v1 scenario. Recommending Person: Annie Burkett I, ~~~Annie Burkett~~~, do solemnly swear the above account is true, made in good faith, and understand that lying upon this commendation is grounds for immediate dismissal from NT and further penalties may apply.

Name: Annie T. Burkett Age: Says she's 19, no birth certificate or other documentation. Probably not actually 19. Gender: Female Blood Type: AB+ General Occupational Role(s): Chaplain, Internal Affairs, Head of Personnel Biography: Most of Annie's past comes from what she tells people. She claims she left home when she was sixteen - or was dishoned, the story tends to change a lot. After she left her home, she gained money any way she could, though she says that she used different methods every single time we've questioned her. This, we suppose, is also the reasoning for her joining with Nanotrasen. [ACCESS LEVEL REQUIRED: SECURITY]: Annie was convicted of piracy roughly two hundred and forty six days ago. Given that her entire crew and vessel were completely wiped out, and given her relatively young age, she was given a choice between execution or working for NT. She chose the latter. Qualifications: Well versed in Space Law, as well as having a minor engineering degree. Employment Records: [REDACTED] Security Records: Convicted of piracy roughly a year ago. Has been convicted of figureheading a cult of "Darkness", where she worships the "Dark Ones". You should probably keep an eye on this one, if you're reading this document. Medical Records: Probably has some kind of mental issue, as she is a convicted "cultist" of a cult she created on her own. The entirety of her left hand was completely removed by some means, and reattached with a mechanical hand. She's also had her right hand removed, though it was managed to be surgically reattached, with much struggling from Annie. She's also allergic to peanuts. Personnel Photo (Appearance text): - Bright red hair - one side is cut much farther than the other. The right side covers her eye, while the left side is cut so that there's barely any bangs. - 5'9", around 145 lb. - Slouches constantly. - Really bright green eyes. - Doesn't smile. Usually. Commendations [only to be added by admin]: Reprimands [only to be added by admin]: Other Notes:

I can definitely see where you're coming from - I'm not merely taking the round I had into account. I'm merely stating that with this, both sides have to be doing very good at their job in order for the round to be remotely fun for everyone, instead of just the person getting to do the killing. In my case, the mutineers were wiped out near instantly, and thus only one side got to rampage about. The hour may give plenty of time, but again, the list was comprised of eight people. During that hour[45 minutes, in my case], I was never told of anything, except to go to Virology because I may be infected with a disease - I was then injected with a thousand million[exaggeration, obviously] units of Radium by an MD who was instructed to do so, and left for dead. All I'm saying is that in the 4 mutiny rounds I've attended, two of them have had "kill" objectives, and one side completely dominated the other. It's just kind of how Mutiny works, and with a killing objective, it's not a game of "if" - It's a game of when. In the case of this objective as well, the HEAD MUTINEER was also selected to be quarantined and eventually killed as well, which while that might be a bug, still adds onto the whole point that it really shouldn't exist alongside a round based entirely on Roleplay. The potential is there, but how often is it really going to take effect? How often are both parties going to be completely fine and equal in power to the point where it can be roleplayed out to its fullest? In the four rounds I've been apart of, one side always takes advantage and keeps it throughout the entire shift. That's my entire argument as to why killing objectives should not be a thing, simply because it adds to the massive stress of the round - If it's fun for one side, but not for the other.. I mean, I guess that's the point of antag, but it just doesn't seem right.

Posting this, now that I'm a bit calmed down about it, because I would like to discuss and potentially change the way Mutiny rounds are played out. Right now, I love the thought that they're an RP-based game mode, and think that having the gamemode be based ENTIRELY around roleplay is a good idea. What I'm against, however, is that certain objectives give the person following them the objective to kill people. I consider this to be extremely against the gamemode, given that it's entirely RP based. The few mutiny rounds I've played were fine, given objectives such as "Change all scientists to shaft miners", etc etc. However, the most recent one, it gave a list of people - myself included - and they were instructed to quarantine and kill them after an hour. The quarantine part, I find, is completely fine - But when it starts suggesting they kill them is where I find that it is extremely against the RP nature of Mutiny. In Mutiny, it clearly states that both parties must follow space law - So how is the murder of them following it? Sure, I guess you could say that they're following laws from Central Command, but the point still stands that you're taking somebody OUT of the Roleplay - Which is the entire purpose of the Gamemode. I get it, that there's only eight or so people they have to quarantine, and they're only allowed to do it after the minute mark - But in the round I played, I was killed, albeit perhaps not intentionally, before the hour, and the objective was still fine. They didn't even think anything of it. The worst part of it is that it was apparently okay, and not even against any kind of rule, which I guess isn't exactly hard to understand. All I'm saying is that Mutiny should not, under any circumstance, have an objective where someone is given permission to kill - I feel that it ruins the atmosphere of a "Roleplay" round, and even though deaths might happen through the sheer nature of arguments, telling someone explicitly to kill someone else is generally a bad thing to do if you want it to be listed as a roleplaying-based round type.