All Activity

This is Cali. Almost ten years old, yet as small as a large kitten. You wouldn't know it by how much fur she sheds though, my poor computer setup is in constant war against cat hair.

*sniff*

Two turtle doves

One partridge in a pear tree

i dont think we are

Hey are we making a push today?

7 Reddit Gold.

6 flashbanged moths

5 skibidi toliets

4 AITA stories while I scroll

Three subway surfer videos to keep me focused.

I believe there was or is a PR to correct this.

Hi, I like your post but I think there are a few issues with your proposals. While para's validhunting rules could maybe be made clearer they're generally in a good place right now. There are a couple of problems with allowing the use of lethal force against antagonists as a non-security crew member: 1. You're just some random NanoTrasen employee, for most characters and situations it makes very little sense that you would be prepared to lay down your life to protect a coworker instead of fleeing and calling for the team of jackbooted thugs that do this for a living like you're trained to do. Additionally, if you kill someone without being able to provably demonstrate that your life or your coworker's life was in serious danger it's clearly murder, and demonstrating this beyond reasonable doubt is difficult to do. 2. There is a fundamental problem with being able to use lethal force as a crew member for the defence of someone else - if any coworker is attacked you could usually just lethal the antagonist since if you try to interfere with an antagonist where you shouldn't, they're just going to attempt to execute you and continue their task, as well they should. This provides justification for you to attempt to kill them and would lead to antagonist gameplay feeling a lot more crew vs antagonist instead of security vs antagonist, in my opinion. Overall I think your suggestions are reasonable and well considered, but I feel that the current system of lethal force only to save your own life and only when there's no other option provides the healthiest gameplay for both crew members and antagonists. The antagonists aren't swamped by crew members rushing to stop them in defence of their friends since the crew members understand the high risk of unceremonious death and the crew members will be treated more easily by antagonists when they interfere less, and escape with minimal injuries more often. This also allows for stronger rules against collateral damage with antags, since bystanders represent less of a threat to the antagonist when they're not going to attempt to murder them.

As the title says - if you middle mouse click the modsuit button, the suit starts to shut down module by module. But when you fall unconscious, it stops. Is there a reason why this makes sense that I'm not seeing?

It's cool that you have your own interpretation of valid hunting, but is this a suggestion of what you want it to be or how you mainly assume it is right now? Because right now, there is no evidence that I have found, where you have to account for this affair with a "staging area". If your intention is to save someone, I don't think you're disallowed from even shoving if the antagonist runs away WITH the victim, from the initial attack, that's written in... the Rules/Advanced Rules of self-defense. If this is a suggestion, my thoughts are that this restricts players even further than necessary. Remember, I initially had a gripe with having to use nonlethal force and being unable to escalate when escalated upon, this suggestion grants the former and also forces players to leave their coworkers behind if the attacker runs away with the victim out of the bar where they attacked.

It's a bit of a scale of how annoying it is. I'd say disarming can definitely still be validhunting, but it depends on how far it goes. Few antags are going to care if someone that was already nearby disarms them a few times during an attack. It's expected in-fact. But whats not expected is an angry mob of assistants chasing them down the hallways and maintenance. I think of this being the core: -The general area around where the crime takes place is the staging area, and you are non-security. -Any non-security already at the staging area at the time of the crime can be non-lethally involved, as long as it stays in the staging area. -Once one of the three parties (the antag, the victim, or you) leaves the staging area, you lose the right to get involved further. Secondary notes: First priority is removing the victim (or yourself if it's you) from the area, and not staying longer than you should. Taking note of the above, this should not take very long as if the antag is in control, they should be able to leave the area quite quickly. If they haven't, then the victim is likely just as easy for you to run away with.

It's good that you said that because after all, the first sentence of Space Law's Self Defense note is: I also made a hyperlink error, but in my first Admin Complaint (correctly hyperlinked), staff did argue against me following into the bridge after the abductor as well. However, in the same complaint, I was informed I could've tried disarming the abductor. I did ask about disarming in another department and if lethal measures are ever allowed to defend coworkers in my discussions with a head of staff. To my understanding, it seems like a blanket measure and players are generally restricted to disarming in most circumstances, regardless of whether they are in a public area or not. My understanding could be flawed and staff clarification could help but that's my perception as it stands. Perhaps I'll ask about it later IDK.

Two April Fools PR being merged on main code

I mean I imagine it kinda revolved around "Public areas." In public areas, antagonists are the one being scrutinized. Going loud in a populated, public area for extended periods of time trends towards murderboning or baiting towards it, and nearby people are often going to be involved. In non-public areas however (especially ones you're not supposed to have access to), the civilian is under scrutiny. You have very little reason to be there, and less to try to jump in front of a stranger's gun.

I understand that's the concern but I do not believe the line of logic is sound. If you intend to save someone, if you meet an antagonist's level of force after they start coming after you, your intention can still be to defend yourself and your coworker. The attacker can still run away because your intention isn't to valid hunt. Objecting against substantially fighting back against an antagonist killing your coworkers, killing YOU, out of fear it can be seen as valid hunting when the antagonist is the one who initiates the conflict, I cannot support that. This can't be simplified as an attacker giving a warning shot and the player using it as an underhanded excuse to valid hunt, this is a broader approach that affects how antagonists could murder whoever they want without substantial resistance, because of an unwarranted fear.

"I don't believe it's sound judgement to object against players responding lethally to an antagonist killing them, becuase the defender was initally helping someone else." ^ Main issue here is that applied to everyone, people would just take this as an excuse to validhunt, just with the added step of "spam-shove them until they retaliate first". It'd be really easy to attempt to press an antag into attacking you and then just stab them to death when they give you a warning shot.

I tried to edit in a hyperlink directing towards Space Law's Modifiers and Special Situations section, but the forums keep freezing. I'm just gonna post to be thorough. Read the above post before going to conclusions. Space Law's Modifiers and Special Situations

ERT set their PACMAN too high Cyberiacyberiacyberiacyberiacyberiad

Hi, I felt I should discuss this topic since I think more people should know about and engage with it. I'd also like to preface that I will reference some of my past complaints for context, but the discussion shouldn't be about me complaining. The framework of this topic was the result of extensive "research", but I shouldn't be taken as an authority on valid hunting or whatnot. "My Understanding" is just that and should be taken with a grain of salt, the only definitive authority should be any appropriate staff responses, if there are any, I suppose. My Understanding Contradictions (For ME) Proposed Solutions