Tayswift
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tayswift
-
-
People are starting to restate points that have already been addressed. Let's stop going in circles.
27 minutes ago, davidchan said:You can't have rules stating players are to respect admin judgments and be respectful to admins during discourse and wait to appeal such actions on the forums as appropriate and then immediately turn around and have admins judge and grade players on notes they have no means to review or dispute.
Yes we can and yes we do. In game, admin judgements are final. Forums allow for these in game judgements to be overridden by headmins. This is how it's always worked.
28 minutes ago, davidchan said:If you want or demand the players to respect the admin decisions the admins have to respect the players enough to keep relevant information on how the players are tracked transparent.
How does the former necessitate the latter? You aren't backing up your claims with any warrants or evidence. We ask the players to respect our decisions in game because disputes are better handled via the forums, since headmins aren't always on in game, and if they are, they aren't always available for dispute resolution.
29 minutes ago, davidchan said:This argument of the need for secrets is simply false, if the information can't be shared with the relevant players it should not be saved at all.
Once again, you just say our argument is false. We've given plenty of examples of when it's useful to have secret information.
30 minutes ago, davidchan said:If admins stand by all notes being appropriately applied and relevant why can't a player view them?
Because we have our own systems of oversight and they work. There's no reason player oversight would help. We've already pointed out how player oversight would cause unnecessary drama and rules lawyering over the tiniest things.
As for the argument of "learning", which we've literally addressed multiple times throughout this thread, the rules are literally just one page. Most people in this thread don't even have multiple notes for the same thing. It's really not that bad. If you're a player who is here in good faith to try to have fun and help everyone else have fun, you won't have any problems. A note saying you were warned isn't going to help that much. If you really absolutely do need a record of every time an admin talked to you, you can open up the PMs panel and copy and paste the conversation into a file. If there was information you needed to know, we would've told you already.
-
You couldn't even take a minute to go read it again for yourself? Your admin app rejection literally says you had a warning "not even a month ago". Your most recent permanent ban at time of admin application was January 2019, not "2+ years" ago.
Your mentor app rejection says that we saw improvement but wanted to see a little bit more, and even encouraged you to apply again in the future. Which is literally the exact opposite of "you have too many notes, you will never change, never apply again".
I'm not sure why you've constructed this narrative in your head that the staff are out to get you, but it's entirely imaginary. We try our best to look for improvement in our players, because what is even the point of warnings and ban appeals if we're not willing to accept that people can improve? We might as well just ban you at first transgression and take down our appeals forum.
-
4 minutes ago, Trubus said:
Notes should expire after a year, I have bans I had two years ago still being used against me. (Admin/Mentor applications)
I find it unfair because as a player, I have changed a whole lot and being told no due to perm ban and notes 2+ years ago is the reason why.
This is blatantly false. You have access to the reason your application was rejected. There's no excuse to be posting misinformation in this case.
Notes do not magically become irrelevant after a set amount of time. Admins use their own judgement as to how long ago a note doesn't become a big factor. Plenty of admins have had a lot of notes and bans in their past and made it in.
-
2
-
-
It's a problem in the example I gave because it's nice to have the flexibility of noting that someone is good at RP without giving them the expectation that they will be chosen for an event in the future. The crux of everything I'm talking about is that things are different when they're being observed.
If you do something wrong, we tell you. That's the first order of business. We never just note a rule break, and then don't tell you about it. Like I said, the primary role of admins is to try to create an environment where people are following the rules. If we don't tell you that you broke a rule, then that's completely counter to our purpose. The note is a thing we will often write down after the fact just for record keeping. It's helpful to other admins in recognizing a recurring issue. We are not here to secretly test your reading comprehension and then ambush you with the banhammer when you don't follow the rules.
As for things that we aren't sure about, the whole point of that is not giving it away or potentially falsely accusing a player. Some issues don't surface from a single incident, but are a pattern across multiple incidents. If someone with bad intentions sees "this player may be trying to do x", then they will either A. get mad and make a note appeal because they weren't actually trying to do x or B. they were trying to do x and change it up to be sneakier in the future. It's much better to, for example in the case of antag fishing, just warn the player once you have enough evidence.
-
Notes are an internal tool used to track various things that need to persist across players, not just warnings and bans, such as good things ("this player did a good job in this event; consider picking them for RP heavy event roles in the future") or iffy things that might not be an issue but should be thought about in the future ("this player seems to quit early a lot. Look into further if you also notice this pattern"). It would be very limiting to make them be public, since we would be facing a note appeal any time anything negative appeared. This increases bureaucracy for no good reason at all and changes the way notes would be used.
Any time a note becomes consequential, you'll know about it anyways, and can dispute it then. For example, an admin might cite previous occurrences of an issue in banning someone. It's not really that big of a deal. If you're not a player who's had repeated problems with following the rules, your notes are going to be extremely boring at best.
You don't need to be worried about an invisible "downward spiral", because you will know it's happening due to repeated warnings from admins. We are not here to discipline you or turn you into a better person or parent you. We're just here to try to make sure people are following the rules, and if we don't tell you what rules you're breaking, then what's the point? To have a "gotcha!" moment as we surprise ban you forever? Almost everyone gets a 2nd chance after a ban here, anyways.
If you believe an admin has warned you in mistake, we've got plenty of examples of admin complaints where an incorrect warning has been rescinded (and the corresponding note also revised/removed). I would be in favor of an optional private admin complaints forum. Not everyone is comfortable complaining about staff publicly.
35 minutes ago, Dinarzad said:"You did something bad, stop doing that."
"Oh, okay what did I do?"
"You don't need to know what, just stop doing it."I'm not sure which admin said this to you, but if you have logs of this, please file an admin complaint. It's my personal experience that admins generally try to explain what rule you broke, especially if you're new. If this sort of thing is happening, it's a reason to file an admin complaint and let that admin know they aren't being detailed enough, not a reason to change the notes system.
-
2
-
-
I guess I'm a little bit surprised that doctors just go in and do whatever even when there's an active coroner. It could be that people aren't used to a coroner who is on top of things, or the classic medbay problem of doctors thinking they're better than everyone and should handle every single thing themselves, or they think they're doing you a favor. I think you could consider letting people know when they come in that you've got it handled and that you've got a system. If it's something that you need to say a lot you could consider making a macro for it.
A mapping change that adds a window could work. And maybe a conveyor belt or something that allows medbay to send bodies into the morgue when there's nobody around. But that kind of thing would probably have doctor players complaining and take a while to happen, so in the meantime it would be good just to be more assertive over the organization of the morgue.
-
1
-
-
I haven't murdered much but I prefer spacing, as it feels less gamey, it fits well with the theme, and it rewards vigilant pod pilots.
-
Instead of a portable charger, we can just make all energy guns self-recharge, at a slow enough rate that it wouldn't really help you much in a single combat, but would make running around for a charger less important. Increasing the convenience and ease of use of energy weapons could help make their lack of damage feel better.
-
pAIs are a mostly flavor + RP role because we're still an MRP server and there's still room for that kind of thing. When people put themselves up for pAI, they're not necessarily looking to be holoparasite lite. Lavaland ghost roles are cordoned off in Lavaland, so unless you want pAIs to have additional restrictions (restricted to Lavaland, capped number, or something like that), I don't see why they should become capable of combat.
-
Unless things changed recently, we already have this. It's the little white crates. I think they're called freezers and each OR has one.
-
9 hours ago, Coul said:
while bullets are inside you you’ll take slight toxin damage,
I think this could be done in a more interesting way than this. The lead poisoning from a bullet would only be over long term, and having to remove the bullet is just an overdone hollywood cliche.
-
There is plenty of room for discussion as well as gut reactions on Github and Discord. Why's it crucial that players must democratically decide each PR? There's already a lot of emerging complexity in distinguishing between "small" and "big" PRs coming up in this thread. No, designing and developing a reliable online voting system is far from trivial and not "quite easy", especially now that we're bringing various in game statistics into it to determine who can vote. tg has a democratically elected headmin and the farthest they go is informal polls on what PRs the players would be interested in further test merging.
There have been plenty of frustrations with the Github system in the past, but never has the solution been yeah, let's just throw everything out the window and operate on majority rule. We can work on increasing transparency and communication without needing to do "twitch plays design ss13". For example, the #changes-wanted channel in discord is an improvement that allows us to know better what the people in charge of the direction of the game would like, which can help guide your contributions and lower the risk of your PR being denied.
-
This absolutely will not work. I can't think of a single game that's designed democratically, and trying to design a system that will result in good game design is an impossible task.
Take a look at any other repos on Github. I'm not sure you can find a single large repo where the users vote on changes. That just doesn't work because each voting player cannot realistically devote the time, effort, and expertise the maintainers have. Most of the time, it'll be just a gut feeling on whether a feature is cool or not. This is not going to result in great decisions.
What do the maintainers get out of it if they're just glorified code reviewers? It's already exhausting to review PRs, and you want to take away their agency as well?
What even are the concerns you want headmins and maintainers to acknowledge? You don't state what you're trying to solve at all.
Edit: remove stuff that's redundant with neca's comment
-
On the topic of bullets not breaking bones, maybe it would be a good idea to expand this to other damage types. Maybe blunt weapons have a higher chance of breaking bones, but things like bullets and scalpels maybe not so much.
-
1
-
-
Wages
in Suggestions
I really like this idea, because it keeps credits non-persistent and as flavor. I think to make things a little more lore friendly, it should be framed as a "performance bonus" instead of as wages (many NT employees are probably more like indentured servants than salaried workers).
Instead of a time based system, we could also allow heads to grant performance bonuses from their computer. The time the crew member has spent on the station determines the max amount of performance bonus they can award each individual crew member. That way if you haven't been doing your job, you still won't get the money.
-
Imo, we should not rely on OOC factors to ensure an interesting play experience. Right now, telescience's power is only offset by the fact that it's obscure and not many people bother with it. But like with telecomms, we reduced the complexity and also its power to make it more accessible and less frustrating to deal with when someone who knows the system too well comes along.
There definitely have to be IC limits for instant teleportation from anywhere. Maybe it costs resources and has a cooldown or it can't teleport alive mobs or things above a certain mass or size. Maybe only pocket size items can be teleported. Teleporting a GPS in and then using the BSA is frustrating for the AI player but it also seems kind of creative and potentially interesting, as it's using resources that aren't always available. However, teleporting in a player into a wall behind the AI is kind of boring and gamey. It might be nice to find a way to limit telescience enough so that we can get rid of the frustrating parts but keep some of the more interesting uses, if possible.
Nevertheless, "improve don't remove" is not always practical, and in my opinion, as it stands right now, telescience's removal seems like a net benefit to the gameplay experience. If we can't figure out a way to make telescience a fun mechanic, then it should be removed.
-
1
-
-
Looking at the wiki, it seems like if execution is the sentence, borgification can be the method or post-processing after a different method, regardless of whether the prisoner wanted to. In fact, legal SOP says that you should consider borging after any execution:
Quote8. Though not obligatory, it is recommended that all executed prisoners be considered for borgification post-execution.
It's also listed as an option for disposal of the body under the other execution options.
-
1 hour ago, Lonelyspaceman said:
Thanks for taking the time to write out this full sized answer to my suggestion. I don't really have anything to add to the end conclusion that it would be too much work for too little payoff. If there's some kinda declined status for suggestions this one could probably be moved into that now.
Thanks! I'm glad that you liked what I wrote. However, it's just my personal opinion and not representative of the staff or playerbase as a whole, and we don't have a "declined suggestion" section, so I will leave it up in case more peeps want to chime in
-
tg did merge a system that would give you points for playing certain roles that would "increase" your chances of being antagonist. However, that system was extremely flawed and broken and was never enabled on tg. The key issue was that it would only increase your chances by reducing other people's chances to be antag. Assuming that we solved that problem though (in some rounds, we would simply have more antags than would usually be added. In that github thread I proposed a few suggestions that would fix the issue), there's a few reasons why I don't think such a system would fit with this server.
I don't think we want to overvalue antagonist status. Some people already really like being antag, other people like being either, and some portion of players just don't like being antag. Obviously, I won't blame you if you prefer playing antag over normal crew member, but imo trying to develop your non-antag experiences a little further will help make your non-antag rounds a bit more enjoyable as opposed to just playing it out to roll for the next round. I think our server atmosphere would be negatively impacted if we were to focus heavily on antag status. That's why we have a karma system rather than an antag token system.
There's also a lot of implementation issues, like how to count the playtime toward increasing your chances of being antagonist. tg's system put a point value on each job. If we didn't care about jobs, then there's still the weirdness of giving you antag% by the minute. Basically, it's a lot of work for no particular reason, since as bad as rng is sometimes, over the long run, it gives everyone a fair shot at being antag.
And then there's round flow issues. Assuming we're not taking other people's antag% for your antag% to increase, in some rounds, we will have more shadowlings or cultists than usually prescribed. That could throw off the flow of the round significantly.
Basically, while it would be nice to smooth out rng a little bit, there's a lot of complications that make it not really worth the time and effort.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Instead of being toxic and salty toward Github contributors who are volunteering their time and effort to try to improve the server, why don't you instead either file an issue, or, better yet, update the wiki with the new shortcuts.
-
It's also very disingenuous to categorize "retard" and "downie" with terms like "idiot" and "cretin". People generally aren't aware that the latter two words have ableist origins, and their ableist meanings are completely outdated. While "retard" probably won't get you banned because fighting the use of that word is likely a losing battle, "downie" almost certainly will because there are no doubts as to the meaning of that word. Personally, I think using "retard" just makes you sound childish.
As with most other rules on the server, use common sense rather than something silly like "well, 'idiot' is allowed on this server so 'downie' must be allowed too".
-
9 hours ago, Ziiro said:
1) You can no longer get prescanned while you're alive (I'll miss it, but the over/under of crew that just do it at roundstart because they play sec/mining is zzz, so good riddance actually)
2) The speed is the same but it scales better with upgrades (do your fucking job, R&D). And because tg has brain traumas, brain damage upon cloning can be serious business.
3) You can scan and clone a body without the ghost of it having to be inside of the body when it's scanned. They had to add a "Do Not Resuscitate" verb you can toggle to not be forced back into your body when it gets spit out of the cloner.
Prescanning being removed is great. It doesn't even make sense that the cloning machine somehow knows that you've died anyways.
The "do not resuscitate" is a good UI change. Making being cloned an opt-out rather than an opt-in makes a lot more sense. If you accidentally forget to opt-out, you can always go cryo, but if you forget to opt-in, well, then you get stuck in the morgue for the rest of the round.
-
2
-
1
-
-
I've seen nukies with more than 8000 hours of play time among them combined win a round in less than 30 minutes, but when we don't have any stats on the nukies teams and how often they win or lose I don't want to comment on the "balance". It seems like nukies already enjoy the challenge of declaring war. If they like the challenge, then I don't see what's wrong with it. They already get extra TC when there's more crew. If it's fun, why stress too much about balance? This isn't a competitive game and we're never going to achieve perfect balance unless we implement matchmaking.
There are probably a few things we can do to make it easier for new nukies though. There's a lot of gotchas involved, like not using magboots properly or putting the jetpack in the wrong slot. Plenty of times even for stealth nukies someone doesn't figure out how to use the jetpack and blows the nukies' cover. We should think about the UI and UX of these items that many players may not be familiar with. Sometimes it just comes down to being plain unrobust (eg me).
What we can also do is make the round more interesting if it's too boring due to lack of conflict. Reinforcements sounds like a good idea for this.
-
The code changes with this stuff is kinda involved. I definitely think this strategy of just trying this out is better.
Admin Note Policy and Transparency
in Suggestions
Posted
If an admin has admonished you for something in error, then you can make an admin complaint/Pm a headmin about that. I'm not sure why you would have to appeal notes from the past? Why would you need to appeal something weeks after it's happened? Just recently there was an admin complaint where an admin made an error in rule enforcement/warning and the corresponding note was fixed to reflect that correction. If you're waiting weeks after the fact to appeal a simple warning, then your memory will be unreliable anyways and won't help in terms of appealing that note.
There are not lots of notes. Talk to a headmin. I think you're really overestimating the number of notes you have. The only reason you would have lots of notes is if you're a problem player, and if you are, you would know from multiple warnings and bans. The players that tend to accrue a lot of notes are players who are immature, lack impulse control, have anger issues, or are too self centered to play a cooperative RP game. You will know if you are one of these because you will be the constant target of admin PMs.
Keep in mind that for non-problem players like those of you chiming in on this thread, notes are rare or non-existent. But having to face constant rules lawyering and note appeals from the players that actually get notes? That's not a can of worms we want to open. This is called optimizing for the common case. The vast majority of the time, a note appeal is not going to be productive, and for those instances where an admin has actually made a mistake, we already have the means for appealing that.