• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ralta last won the day on May 9 2019

Ralta had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About Ralta

  • Other groups Wiki contributor,
    InGame Verified
  • Rank
    Jr. Member
  • Birthday 05/23/1990

Personal Information

  • Byond Account

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here's my response from the Git, since Necaladun has asked we not discuss anything but code there: "Boy oh boy, I do not understand the reactions here. It baffles me how admins can say things like "If this is merged, I'll just make all my notes private!". You've just made the case for transparency on your own; if you're intending to hide your notes, I dread to think what they might contain. I say this as someone who has administrated for a variety of games at a variety of levels for years. I know everyone says "I was a headmin on this one server so I know my stuff" but I do system administration for a living and have done for some time; hiding responses from your clients is unprofessional and breeds an atmosphere of doubt ("If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" - I hate that particular concept, but some people tend to think that way). That said, private notes would exist purely to ensure admins have a way of communicating concerns about behaviour of a player privately (metagaming/comming, toxicity etc) and the player shouldn't even know they exist. They can ask if there's a secret note and the admin response will always be "I cannot tell you." This is literally how regular notes work now, so people would be no more likely to ask about private notes than they would about current notes. In the event of admins abusing the private notes system, headmins intervene and slap the admin on the wrist. If an admin is incapable/uninterested in writing notes that are appropriate for public viewing, they should not be an admin, period. Other servers work like this, so it's not like there isn't already precedent for using a public notes system and they seem to do just fine (except for Oracle - F). Irrespective of the decision made on this matter, admins shouldn't be showing their asses by announcing they'd flout the system; that makes you all look bad by association." To admins saying things like "Player gets warning, wants to know the contents of the note", you tell them no, like you do right now for all notes. Although they shouldn't even know you've left a hidden message, so that point ought to be moot.
  2. This is almost exactly what I said in my post at the bottom of page 1. So...agreed?
  3. There's a lot of information here and I'm not going to respond to everything mentioned. Instead, here's my two cents, plain and simple: All typical notes should be made public. The player can see when a note when it's made and the content it contains. Same goes for all historic notes. In specific situations, hidden notes can be created by Admins which players are not privy to. This should only be information like: "Possible metacomming with X, keep an eye on them" "Same IP as known troublemaker Y". In other words, notes for Admins to keep an eye on players, or make note of issues for which evidence might be dubious or circumstantial. I appreciate there are historic notes that might fall under the second category which would be visible to players, but I don't think that's the end of the world. Yes, players will question notes at first. But if you make it clear you are adding a note to their account because of X, Y and Z at the time you make it, they will be aware of it and argue it at the time instead of pester about it later.
  4. If it could be expandable somehow, that'd be neat. So if you examined, you'd get the normal detail but could click a button to receive the 'detailed' info. Or perhaps make it as simple as a HUD button that allows you to turn the advanced scanning on/off.
  5. Written some lore at @farie82's request. The second draft needs further tweaking, but is as follows:
  6. @xyd For the record, I'm not in favour of displaying individual staff votes, I mentioned ratios because I'm interested in how the staff are voting and based on what criteria. Anonymity is fine for this.
  7. There's a particular quote I've been looking for that I can't seem to locate, but this suits the purpose well enough: I fully understand hiding certain things from the users; not everything needs to be publicly accessible. However, votes and opinions on PR's as well as player notes/warnings should be far more visible. Regardless of the actual reason, to me it often looks like an intentional concealment of information due to concerns of embarrassment or public outrage.
  8. I don't know if democracy is the right approach, necessarily, but I would definitely be in favour of transparency. It should be far more clear why something is accepted versus why something is not; I'd love to know the ratio of staff votes in favour/opposed and the reasoning behind these votes as well. On a similar note, a player should be able to view their notes in-game. As above, transparency is key in my opinion.
  9. Ralta

    Assistants 2.0

    As has been mentioned, an engineer is no less capable of being 'tide with free insuls' than the proposed assistant. The difference being that the assistant would have less access to those gloves to begin with.
  10. Ralta

    Assistants 2.0

    Indeed, this is a problem that affects all jobs; there's nothing special here to make people any more or less likely to take gear and go fuck around. That said, my suggestion is to lessen their access to whatever area they are assisting. For example, an Engineering Assistant doesn't need engine room access; if they need to go in there, it should be with a qualified engineer.
  11. I'm not suggesting a trainee/trainer role gets added in addition, I'm suggesting them as alternatives to this idea, which I am against. I don't think the Sec Instructor role is a good concept, I'm sorry to say.
  12. There is far, far too much text here to read every single post, but here's my two cents. To echo what others have said, I think this job will be no different to a veteran officer who knows what they're doing and teaches other officers how to do the job. Personally, I think there are two alternate approaches that might work better: 1. Go the opposite route and create a Trainee Officer role to clearly delineate newbies. They're clearly in need of hand-holding, and I'd suggest giving them Brig access but not equipment room access. Biggest issue I see with this is antags taking advantage, but that would require some discussion, I imagine. 2. Take the concept a step further and create a role akin to Veteran Officers (call them what you will). Again, something to delineate those who know what they're doing from those who might now. Veterans can act as team leads if the HoS assigns teams, they can hand-hold newbies as needed and they can be a rallying point if the HoS and Warden are either unavailable or dead. There would be a time requirement to unlock - no karma required. A trainer role, to me, has weird lore implications (why would you send untrained staff to a station? Staff in training is more reasonable to me) and I'm not convinced it would be anything but an excuse for people to act like a drill instructor for 45 karma. I could sit here and write an essay, but I doubt anyone would read it. Suffice to say, I'm not a fan of the concept as it is.
  13. This, I would be okay with. It doesn't make them much stronger than they currently are in terms of equipment and it gives them the slightly more interesting gear that people want from a karma job. Giving them any form of martial art, regardless of how much it makes sense from a 'realism' perspective is too much of a power increase imo
  14. Out of curiosity, how much storage do the Paradise servers have? In spite of the huge amount of data being accessed, I assume there's actually a relatively small amount of storage required to keep things running and logged?