Shadeykins
-
Posts
3,621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
34
Posts posted by Shadeykins
-
-
10 hours ago, Gabe said:
As Dumb said, the server logs are accessible to the administrators, so dismissing all the complaints of the multitude of security mains in this thread or otherwise because they haven't screenshotted a specific occasion is merely you avoiding the issue. It's a commonly voiced concern that whenever a member of Paradise's staff receives criticism, they plug their ears whilst their fellow admins defend them rabidly. I get that you must also receive a lot of flak just for being admins, but the difference is you have voluntarily chosen to become an administrator knowing the attitude you will be facing. Playing security should not be this same kind of commitment, where you go in expecting to be metagrudged and griefed. It's a job in the game and the people who like its mechanics are entitled to have fun, just like those fortunate enough to role antag.
It's more likely the fact that you're being extremely passive-aggressive/hostile toward administration that's prompting people to be on the defensive. Making inferences that the staff team is like a pack of rabid dogs (which is what your wording implies) is an example of this passive-aggressive behaviour.
As stated numerous times, SS13 has a server-wide issue with security. This is not something relegated to Paradise, almost every server struggles with the "shitcurity" problem. Nobody is in denial that there is a legitimate issue with security, and that it's largely a cultural one which is in turn reinforced by the game mechanics. This is something that's been a problem since the inception of Paradise, so to claim it's solely the fault of administration bwoinking people when the entire administrative team is different since the one in 2013-2014 is ingenuous at best.
10 hours ago, Gabe said:It seems so far, all the security mains on this thread, and those I've spoken to otherwise, confirm to have felt this anti-security bias by at least some members of the staff team. The trial admin "BrandonSacawv" is being mentioned frequently, in this regard. I feel like this echoes Hylo's point that nobody ever seems to fail their trial period, or in fact ever gets punished at all, once on the staff team. I think the current method of taking on people who have been a mentor for a long time, then whizzing them through a so-called trial in which some of them are not even active, is only harmful to the server. I will say, Brandon has been one of the most active admins I've seen recently, so as much as I've had numerous disagreements with him, I can respect him on the basis that he at least appears to be putting effort into the role.
We have access to activity logs (minutes played) and every single application has these logs posted to it for deliberation. If someone is inactive, they do not become a TA. People don't typically fail their trial period because we're notoriously careful/picky about how we vote on these applications in the first place; if you're interviewing and hand-picking from the candidates who apply (via a staff-wide vote), it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of them pass their trial period.
This is not a process of "whizzing people through" a so-called trial, it is the result of careful selection criteria. We do not operate on rule of cool hiring for administrators.
As for what Hylo has said, we don't disclose either player or administrative punishments. This is a game server, not a pedestal on which we publicly flog people so they can be shamed for all eternity--not even businesses engage in this sort of behaviour (in fact, in most places it's downright illegal for businesses to do so).
10 hours ago, Gabe said:I would suggest a few things. Firstly, scrutinise mistakes when they are made, the more they are ignored the less the admin will learn. I also suggest that admins be left to deal with their own critics, as currently when someone's actions are called into question it gets the entire staff team up in arms - much like this thread, apart from here I didn't even mention specific events or names at first. Adding onto this last point quickly, in admin complaint threads it seems any admin is allowed to give their opinion on the matter, but this does not apply to any player, as "non-relevant" posts will be removed. Finally, I suggest being more open about any and all disciplinary actions which staff members receive.
The first suggestion is what the Admin Complaint section is for.
As to the second suggestion, I would much rather draft policy that administrators can't post on those threads whatsoever (because they shouldn't be).
As to the third, no. We don't publicly shame players (in fact, we make every effort not to disclose punishments for this reason), and we don't publicly shame administrators.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Varlun said:
I would strongly urge you to consider all the points I made. Not sure if you read them or skipped to the end, but I think the SOP makes perfect sense and should be followed.
The crux of the issue is that it's definitely not fun for any of the players involved who get stuck in their departments, and creates a massive influx of administrative problems from bored tide who suddenly can't leave the bar.
The issue with de-escalating from Code Red after 15 minutes is most threats aren't resolved in 15 minutes, and there's plenty of Code Red threats that require the entire attention of the crew (IE: locking people in departments is antithetical to your success against a blob, nukies, wizard, etc).
-
10 minutes ago, Hylocereus said:
I also recall seeing those characters maybe a handful of times. While my activity did go through a sharp drop, on returning I have still been active enough to familiarize myself with most names in security. Maining a role but only playing it a few hours a week still doesn't give a good sample size for what is actually happening.
And I recall seeing you all of once in the entirety of the past week. Despite this, I can see very clearly you're a player that has logged in every single day for the past week. I really don't think you're accounting for the fact that there is an entire ocean of time difference between when you play, and when NA administrators/players play. I have easily sunk thousands of hours into this server and have been an active member of this community since late 2014.
Nobody is making inferences about your department/playtime to try and dismiss your arguments, and I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to everyone else.
-
17 minutes ago, Hylocereus said:
This is a heated issue, as can be clearly seen, but it is far from without merit that this post was made. I'd also like to point out that so far, none of the members of staff who have participated in this discussion actually play security with any regularity and so their insistence that nothing is wrong is something I would take with a healthy pinch of salt.
I have been maining security, as has Necaladun, for the better part of two years. Ty has also regular played security, as has the administrator (Brandonsacawv) who was brought up.
In fact, I personally have four characters who are entirely dedicated to security jobs. Kyra Biery (Officer), Tex Smithson (Detective), and Lila Jones (Officer/Warden, I play this one w/ randomized names), Tyrone Black (Officer/HoS). Additionally I play security with my character Dusk, though they are by no means a "security character".
Making false and baseless accusations about who plays in what job, when you categorically lack access to that information, is not helpful to a discussion whatsoever.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Coldflame said:
if you don't want to promote it why is it in sop lmao
Unsurprisingly, community expectations of what is and isn't acceptable changes over time. SOP is a monolithic document that's substantially longer than most senior-level university papers, and had extensive community input and edits. To buoy this point, just the main page of SOP is 3,600 words alone--altogether (accounting for all SOP pages) we're easily looking at an excess of 30,000 words. It should come as no surprise that there's the occasional quibble in it. There's also the fact that things can sound good on paper, but not pan out in practice.
It's not as though SOP is a non-living document that will contain absolutely no issues whatsoever at any time, there's been plenty of emendations to it since its inception--assuming otherwise is dumb.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Coldflame said:
code red sop lets sec hit people with workplace hazard for not following a reasonable order, so sec can brig people who refuse to comply with staying in their departments
The more you know, though this seems like an oversight. I could be wrong, but to my knowledge arresting people for walking down the halls isn't something we really want to promote.
I'll bring it up to see if we can't get it emended/changed if I'm correct in my assumption.
-
On 6/2/2018 at 2:07 AM, Coldflame said:
As the title says. They're in a weird middle ground between sec and crew, so I'm unsure which escalation rules apply.
Blueshield is indeed outside of the security's purview. With that said, if a person presents themselves as an imminent threat to a head (IE: actively trying to kill them), they can use lethals. Otherwise, they should be stunning and cuffing.
-
There is no charge for violating SOP outside of, possibly, a demotion--which is never security's call anyways.
This bit of SOP literally exists just to award security an excuse to search people. It's not feasible to actually enforce in any realistic capacity.
-
There are issues with how security is treated all around, but this is largely not an administrative issue; it is an issue that is, and continues to be, a long-standing problem for the SS13 community at large. Unrobust security players are treated terribly by most players because they're seen as loot pinatas, or misapply laws (which happens, it's understandable). The general mentality of "SHITCURITY!" tends to drive away these newer players or prevents them from receiving any encouragement to continue playing/getting better at security roles.
Furthermore, this also has an effect on veteran players who often get stressed out from dealing with the constant influx of never-improving newer security players who cycle in and out. This isn't even to begin to mention the issues we have with actually filling what is undoubtedly the most difficult department to play in, full-stop.
7 hours ago, Gabe said:In a recent round, two traitors were on a murder spree in science maint. They killed the HoS and multiple officers, one of these traitors was the RD. I was cornered by them in maint, they had access to meth and deathchems and I obviously did not. As they were murdering me, another officer came by (can't remember specifically who, Unathi player though) followed by a doctor, they proceeded to save and heal me. We chased them further, separating the two, I killed one of them and was prevented from pursuing the second by what definitely was a grilling from the admin 'BrandonSacawv', which was never resolved as he just ignored me after a while. This same admin also contacted the doctor, Sam Aria, antagonising them for defending themself as they healed me. It is fairly clear to me, from this situation and others that the admin in question does not like security or security players.
It's no secret I have gripes with Paradise's staff, and I take every opportunity to point this out - but overall I think you can agree the excessive toxicity, especially toward security, needs to stop.
If you have serious contentions with how an administrator handled a situation, this is what the admin complaints section is for. Irrespective of this, a single administrator taking issue with a situation is not a reflection of the entire administrative team's outlook on a certain situation. We're well aware of the issue with security players, which is why Paradise's staff has been accused repeatedly of being "too hard on antagonists" and "pro-security." I'm sure you can see the paradox here, and a discourse that promotes the idea that administration at large has a grudge against security (which it doesn't) is not at all conducive to sorting out anything.
If anything, such a discourse shifts the root of the problem (that being that security is an all around unfriendly job toward newcomers/veterans for a cornucopia of reasons) and prevents us from achieving any sort of tangible solution.
8 hours ago, Coldflame said:i'm also very, very confused about your 'context is important' statement if you're now stating that it's based on the space law escalation rules, there's no context needed to follow very specific objective guidelines
The objective guidelines are "are they armed at the time, uncontainable, or have the means to immediately stun and/or kill you as a result? If yes: apply lethal force at your discretion" (and discretion is a very, very important word here).
The context is what is actively going on at the time, does the person actually present a realistic threat despite being armed, etc. A greytide picking up a gun technically falls under the purview of the "Armed and Dangerous" clause, but that's a far cry from a vampire actively murdering someone while holding a stunbaton. The tide here, while they can be legally executed on the spot, should not be--there's genuinely no need to do so unless he's clearly going to go ham. This is where context plays a role.
4 hours ago, EvadableMoxie said:To offer a rebuttal: Just because someone is not explicitly punished by the admins doesn't mean their round has not been irrevocably damaged by having to stop playing and start defending themselves from admins. Getting bowinked and having to stop playing to discuss what you did and why with an admin is stressful and unfun, and even if a player is never punished. It's an experience that will highly motivate a player to not play security again.
I'm not sure exactly what we do with that information, because I understand that admins are not omnipotent and have to ask questions, but it's something to keep in mind, and we can't just say that it's all good and no harm has taken place just because someone wasn't actually punished.
Unless someone is clearly violating the rules, the vast majority of administrators will wait until the resolution of a situation before speaking with that player. While this is not a "written policy," it is a courtesy extended to players by administrators and one that we make every attempt to ingrain into new administration. If there's believed to be an active violation of the rules and an administrator needs to ask questions, nobody should realistically expect them to sit on their hands and wait until the potentially rule-violating player has finished in order to deduce what's going on.
This is largely a zero-sum game, administrators need to ask questions from various parties to figure out what exactly just happened. Until we reach a point where every action on the server is being recorded and can be instant-replayed, there is no elegant solution to this problem.
Mentioning the lack of omnipotence is also a good call, as a lot of people here perhaps don't realize the impossibly large stream of data being blasted at the administration team every second. We have a scrolling chat of every attack log on the server, bomb logs, bomb valves being touched, canisters being opened, debrainings, maint drones screwing with their laws, AI updates, debug logs (there are more than you think), on top of every emote, spoken word, LOOC comment, and radio channel all at once. There's a pretty good chance that the administrator in question is looking at variables to figure out what's going on and ingenuously PM's a player who's otherwise busy to ask about something.
With all that said, all parties are asked to please refrain from keeping the dialogue here overly hostile and personal.
-
1
-
-
Bans need to be appealed/discussed in their relevant subforum located here:
https://nanotrasen.se/forum/55-unban-requests/
Please draft an appeal according to the guidelines laid out in aforementioned subforum. -
Why xD when you can x3?
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, MamaFarthole said:
They're great! Could you link me the program? I can't seem to find it! Haha
-
1
-
-
Neat! The planets on the wiki were created using a freeware program called "Planetarium" along with a fair amount of photo-editing.
-
1
-
-
Locking for obvious reasons.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Free speech/free expression has never existed in Europe, at best it's only ever been "protected speech".
The American notion of free speech is a novelty, so it's not surprising to see other governments clamp down on what they view as dissenting speech (since they always have done so). There's entire subjects in Academia which you can't study or write controversial (yet sourced) papers on in Europe because it's too much of a political/social gaffe to do so.
-
I would ask in Coder-Chat about making PRs, personally I have no clue how to do that.
-
They do have a unique outfit already.
If you want a special labcoat, why not try your hand at spriting one?
-
Double its TC cost and make it used the interface that the advanced camera console uses.
This is, for reference, the same "camera interface" that abductors/the AI gets.
-
1
-
-
I've been campaigning for this for aeons.
Fox has said all there really needs to be said.
-
* Piccione has been given wiki contributor status.
-
I was reticent when I saw the title, but after the explanation it seems cool.
You could disguise yourself as the Captain, then murder them and take their place.
It also makes it possible to frame people if you're crafty enough.
-
Congratulations to the latest batch of people to receive wiki contributor status:
* KingPhillipIII
* Miraviel/Adri
* Probably other people I'm forgetting!
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, EvadableMoxie said:
For people who don't like playing antag, nothing really changes. They aren't trying to get antag anyway, and getting an antag token they won't use is no different than right now, where they just get nothing.
For people who like antags but can't code, the odds they'll be an antag go down slightly since they are now competing with people with tokens. However, they get to benefit from all those fixes that wouldn't otherwise have been done. So things here are a wash at worst.
For people who like antags but can code, the system is obviously great for them.
Seems like at worst people break even here. Who exactly is hurt by this?
This is not how antag tokens work.
I would honestly be opposed to this. It requires admins or a maint to constantly note people for antag-tokens, and then it requires administrators to constantly hand out antagonist (which artificially raises the number of antagonists in a round).
Yes, this is how antag tokens actually function--it's literally a note on your account, you ahelp and ask for antag (traitor/vamp/changeling) and the administrator makes a judgement call in awarding it.
If we want to increase code contribution, we need to get serious about treating our contributors in a more even-handed fashion and actually hiring people into the coding team. There have been plenty of people over the ages who have contributed a tremendous amount to the codebase who were never made coders. IK3I, Purpose, Tzo, Flattest, Ziiro and Birdtalon all come to mind (regardless of how you feel about any of these people, they were all substantial contributors or competent coders). Mentoring new coders is something we should be doing as well, we don't really even have a good wiki page as an introduction to BYOND code (and we really should, but I sure as heck can't make it since I don't know BYOND coding).
A little thank-you goes a long way. For instance, wiki contributions nearly quintupled when contributors were awarded the praise they had long deserved via a reddit/forum/discord post and the wiki contributor tag was introduced.
As Neca said, the root of the problem is in the number of contributors - not with the number of maints.
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Tayswift said:
The point of the example isn't to demonstrate an in-game scenario but to show how, with no malicious intent at all, and just an honest interpretation of the laws, you can go to destroying all of Nanotrasen. This can backfire in smaller, in-game ways. For example, let's say an AI interprets replacement as cloning. Then, to minimize expenses, the AI might be incentivized to just hide a crew corpse it found instead of bringing it to medbay. It would be self-antagging, but I think it's a good idea to make the lawset compatible with the rules. Right now, we have a lawset that minimizes ALL the variables in that equation. It's basically a pre-subverted AI. @IK3I's rewording of corporate in my PR adds a few extra parameters that prevent corporate from backfiring in rule-breaking ways (but leaves the rest of corporate's interesting gameplay in place).
Extrapolating the laws to such an extent is not at all an honest interpretation of them whatsoever.
We will have to agree to disagree.
put rev in rotation
in Suggestions
Posted
I actually enjoy Rev myself, but it does need some work on mechanics. Maybe we should have an item that's just more than a flash used for conversion.