Index
-
Posts
61 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Index
-
-
NANOTRASEN SCIENCE STATION CYBERIAD
INTERNAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Type of Report: Shift Duty Report
Time of occurrence: 17:24 EST 1/10/2563
Investigating Agent: Human Resources Agent Anderson Smith
Summary of Report:Acting Command Structure found to be highly incapable of the duties required and resistant to oversight.
Security Force found to be highly incapable of and understaffed for the duties required.
Janitorial Staff found to be highly incapable of the duties required.
Engineering Staff under-staffed for the duties required.
Report Body:
Events listed chronologically:HoP [REDACTED] Appointed Acting Captain. HoP [REDACTED] appears resistant to official oversight of her actions as acting captain. Janitorial staff appear unwilling to work, Security lobby and both bridge entries are coated in large quantities of blood for an extended period of time. Bomb explodes in Medbay, Cryos primarily affected; Medbay in general damaged. Non-Detailed Captain [REDACTED] arrives on NSS Cyberiad. Engineering crew-member [REDACTED] appeals directly to captain skipping chain of command requesting evac due to lack of ability to repair station, only damage thus far is aforementioned damage to Medbay. Security appears to have no credible leads on bombing suspect. Captain [REDACTED] calls for evac with no attempted restorative action taken. Captain [REDACTED] advised by HRA to attempt restorative action before abandoning the station; Unheeded. Multiple more bombs destroy significant other parts of the station. Situtation no longer controllable by command staff, evac recommended. Captain [REDACTED] sheltered in arrivals escape pods, preventing early departure despite bomb risk in and around departures. Captain [REDACTED] decided to abandon arrivals pods with less than 1 minute until departure to attempt a now ill-advised early-launch authorization.
Signature: Anderson Smith -
Many of you, probably all, wont recognize me because I have much less time than I used to but I joined the forums in 2014 and have been playing on and off since a little before that; I bring this up not to imply I know better, if you disagree by all means disagree, I just bring it up as a reassurance I don't just play IAA because I'm new as many people in this thread have reported happens with IAAs.
With that out of the way: When I do play I am someone who plays IAA as their primary role and I see a lot here that, in my opinion of the role, is a fundamental misunderstanding. IAAs are so much more than the sec-minders that the OP seems to imply, forgive me if I am wrong. Veloxi hit the nail on the head though, IAA exists to protect the company, not it's employees. To that end, and to make the role more relevant, IAAs need to be empowered to do that, they should have the authority to demote non-command staff, under penalty of brigging if the reprimanded employee will not comply. And as far as I'm concerned if they get a fax from NT, the authority to demote even command staff. Could it be abused? Yes. Does the Job need to become a Karma Unlock, to compensate? Maybe. The bottom line though is IAAs don't do their job not because they don't want to but because they don't have one, because no one has to listen to them, because their word carries no authority; give them the authority they need to actually do their job. Don't mistake, what a Captain says on his/her ship goes, but the IAA should not need his/her permission to act. The captain can always step in if they feel so inclined, and then if the Captain can be shown to be acting against the interests of NT in doing so then a quick fax can always sort that out.
-
1
-
-
A very very expensive addiction, do cocaine instead, it's cheaper and both are about equally as bad for your mental health.
-
Objective Section:
Even less actually, pretty much just the fact its function is as a loyalty implant.
Loyalty, as defined by Oxford English Dictionaries: "The quality of being loyal to someone or something."
Loyal: "Giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution"
Antonym of Loyalty: Disloyalty: "Failing to be loyal to a person, country, or body to which one has obligations." (The implant gives you those obligations to NT.)
Synonym for Disloyal: Subversive: "Seeking or intended to subvert an established system or institution."
Subvert: "Undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution)"
When you disobey a direct order from a superior you are thus acting disloyally, the opposite of acting loyally.
Subjective Section:
When you are loyalty implanted you place the interests of NT above everything, including yourself. Assuming you have a legitimate authority of NT ordering you to do something that NT would consider a legitimate order you are bound by your implant to do it. For example, a loyalty implanted crewman during a blob round who can activate the nuke and maintain the quarantine must do so after the order from NT comes, even though that means killing themselves.
-
No room here, if you are asked a question by a member of security you are implant-bound to answer it, same thing with an order you are given. Assuming you have no orders or questions asked of you you may do nothing, hang out at the bar for example, but as a loyalty implanted crew member you are required OOC to carry out orders or answer questions issued by what NT considers legitimate authority: sec, command staff, NT officials, etc.
-
Come back when people aren't starving in your country
I'm pretty sure no one can claim this... Portugal itself is worse than average in the euro-zone for risk of poverty: http://www.bportugal.pt/en-US/BdP%20Pub ... 0902_e.pdf
-
Tobacco fucks you up even if you don't smoke it, just being around people who do, and marijuana has **almost** no short term effects and long term. I say ban tobacco, e-cigs ok, legalize marijuana and tax it.
Actually burning and then inhaling pretty much anything, including marijuana [1], is going to be carcinogenic. E-cigs (given proper health and safety regulations) are theoretically safe being that no burning occurs and nicotine shows little to no serious negative health-related side effects on it's own [2]. This non or negligible carcinogenicity of e-cigs (and analog devices) is proven out almost universally in scientific papers [3]. Although long-term effects of e-cigs would appear to be fine given these extrapolations, further testing should be carried out.
[T]he primary danger from legalizing marijuana, but only in vaporized or other non-combusted forms is similar to the danger for alcohol, it's use alongside the operation of a motor vehicle, nearly doubling the rate of serious injury and/or death relating from a motor vehicle accident [4]. Although it should be noted that marijuana has other negative dose dependent side-effects, as well as documented negative withdrawal effects in 10%-20% of long-term users [5].
All that being said I support the legalization of weed in the US with similar time and place and age restrictions to cigarettes (although with a ban in ALL public places instead of just some and 18+ only). And similar activity restrictions to high levels of alcohol (.08 and up BAC). But this support is predicated on increasing the severity of punishments for driving impaired, if you drive impaired more than three times you should in all cases lose your right to drive permanently, confounding factors like vehicular homicide or child endangerment should lead directly to permanent revocation of driving privilege.
[1] http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident ... okeHID.pdf
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0596001002
[3] http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/j ... 1041a.html
[4] http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536.full.pdf+html
[5] http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/2/116.full.pdf+html
Not sure why this needed a separate thread but I'll flow with it.
-
Actually burning and then inhaling pretty much anything, including marijuana [1], is going to be carcinogenic. E-cigs (given proper health and safety regulations) are theoretically safe being that no burning occurs and nicotine shows little to no serious negative health-related side effects on it's own [2]. This non or negligible carcinogenicity of e-cigs (and analog devices) is proven out almost universally in scientific papers [3]. Although long-term effects of e-cigs would appear to be fine given these extrapolations, further testing should be carried out.
Also, while I'm here, the primary danger from legalizing marijuana, but only in vaporized or other non-combusted forms is similar to the danger for alcohol, it's use alongside the operation of a motor vehicle, nearly doubling the rate of serious injury and/or death relating from a motor vehicle accident [4]. Although it should be noted that marijuana has other negative dose dependent side-effects, as well as documented negative withdrawal effects in 10%-20% of long-term users [5].
All that being said I support the legalization of weed in the US with similar time and place and age restrictions to cigarettes (although with a ban in ALL public places instead of just some and 18+ only). And similar activity restrictions to high levels of alcohol (.08 and up BAC). But this support is predicated on increasing the severity of punishments for driving impaired, if you drive impaired more than three times you should in all cases lose your right to drive permanently, confounding factors like vehicular homicide or child endangerment should lead directly to permanent revocation of driving privilege.
[1] http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_ident ... okeHID.pdf
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0596001002
[3] http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/j ... 1041a.html
[4] http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e536.full.pdf+html
[5] http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/2/116.full.pdf+html
-
On the suicide front, a better cultural understanding of mental illness and the de-stigmatization of it. Along with more affordable mental health care, but more affordable healthcare is a whole other can of worms when you are talking about a country of 300 million so I'll avoid detailing/debating this today.
On the non-self-inflicted front the answer is simple (unfortunately implementing it is not), a better educational system, and again the breadth of changes needed would be too broad to discuss here.
Note some of these would be legal changes; they just aren't legal changes targeted at removing guns to reduce gun violence but rather targeted at reducing the cause of gun violence. I never said legal action would not be necessary, just that direct legal gun control is not.
Also I should have been more clear in my last message, because educational reform is one of those big radical changes I mentioned I would like, but I also mentioned those changes weren't related to guns. And I meant those changes weren't related to guns directly. Because a more educated populace is one with lower crime rates overall, including gun crimes, so they are still related, just not directly.
-
I'd like to quash right now this thought that private servers with modified game conditions are a bad thing. Would I want to play on one? Depends, any amount of pay-to-win? Then no, but if the private hive is otherwise fine, it's a good way to have one char to play with friends and one to play solo for instance, and if the private hive makes the game more fun for you without compromising other people on the server (through aforementioned pay-to-win bullshit) then even more power to it. That isn't to say these hives can't be run poorly.
Regen is right about admin abuse being pathetic, but that isn't a problem with private hives as a whole, just with some who have bad management.
-
So effectively you would not want any radical changes to the way things are?
Isn't this mindset part of the problem?
The oversimplification is strong...
I would not be opposed to radical changes if I thought they were needed, there are some areas of American law I think do need radical changes (but that is a discussion for another day as they don't relate to guns).
I just don't think radical changes to gun laws will help (because they don't address the root problems) and are thus unnecessary and over reaching.
-
Oh I know, I can't wait, I've always loved the Civ games and my favorite genre is sci-fi, so I'm very excited. Thanks for the live-stream link.
-
I'm debating the issue at hand, which is your constitution giving the basis of a 'natural right' for firearm ownership - Americans see it as a 'right' to own them, it is their 'right' to have an assault rifle for defence. This belief doesn't exist in much of the rest of developed nations, firearm ownership is deemed in most jurisdictions as a 'responsibility' you aren't automatically entitled to one just because you have the money to buy one.
It doesn't really matter to my point or not if it's a privilege (it isn't) the fact is ANYONE in the UK can be granted Shotgun/Firearm ownership so long as they are not a convicted criminal who has spent time in prison, have a safe place to store the firearm (a cabinet within their home) and have someone who is willing to sign off on their behalf.
It matters not if you're rich or poor, black or white - everyone has to hit the required levels of 'responsibility' in order to be permitted to own one.
That is SENSIBLE.
In the US if someone stores their firearm inappropriately, not locking it away ect what action can your country take against that person? No action at all - they cannot 'revoke' a persons right to gun ownership in the US - in the UK they can (and will in those circumstances.)
I have a feeling you see these measures as sensible yourself but have no argument to these points and are simply deflecting the issue.
I've already addressed the issue, I'm not deflecting anything, there is just no point in arguing the meaning of a word, when it's clearly not known by the other party and they don't seem willing to look it up to see.
I'll address your 'right' concerns again though, and even expand on it. We in America do have a constitutional right (which is a legal not natural right), to keep and bear arms. As far as whether that is the correct way for a developed nation to go about things, I say yes, it is the duty of the government to be involved in people's affairs as little as possible, to only step in where necessary. The rate of firearms deaths in America does not warrant any more governmental action than checks for dis-qualification. Does that mean the issue we do have should be ignored? No, but rather that it should be approached from a more rational and less emotional way. The problem isn't that guns are being used to kill people but rather that people are killing one another, and that people are committing suicide (The majority of firearm deaths in America are intentional suicides). Even if tighter gun controls did reduce murder and suicide rates (it does reduce suicide rates but does not reduce murder rates[1]) the underlying problems remain, people still want to/will kill each other and people are still medically depressed.
As far as checking for qualification instead of disqualification is concerned, it would be sensible if it were needed, but as the statistics stand, it's simply overbearing.
As far as laws regarding improper storage are concerned, I wouldn't be opposed to them in principal, but I don't know how useful they will be, unless the government sends people to check periodically. Hahahahahah-- No. 28 states already have "failure to secure" laws and every state has an equivalent for criminally negligent manslaughter. That being said, if you have no minors (or other dependents of less-than-adult capabilities) in the house (including just for visits) I don't see a need to secure a firearm in a safe.
One thing I'm noticing is you think it's the federal governments job to do everything, and in America it's not, we are a federalist country (sadly less so every year) and state governments are much more important than their equivalents in other western countries, which are for the most part Unitary States. Try to bear that in mind.
[1] http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
-
Radman2307
Now moving on, I don't believe in God either but many Americans do and many Americans cite their 'natural rights' when defending the second amendment. It isn't a straw man argument, this is fact.
It is within your second amendment that every American is entitled to own a firearm for defence.
In the UK you aren't 'entitled' to the ownership of a firearm, it is a RESPONSIBILITY (not a privilege, that would imply an eliteism to ownership and there isn't in the UK) you have to show the police you can be trusted and are responsible enough to own one, if you cant then you don't get one.
You are debating with me-- not 'many Americans' so attacking my position by attacking the argument that guns in America are a 'god given right' is a straw-man plain and simple.
You are correct here though we do have a second amendment right, although if you are meaning to imply this has a connection with god, I don't see it; and if you don't mean to imply that I am not sure why you brought it up.
As much as you might not want it to be so what you have is a privilege, not a responsibility. Many aspects of language allow for the argument of connotation vs denotation, but not here, the means of those two words are too well separate. Owning a fire-arm may require you to act responsibly, but is not a responsibility itself, it is a privilege- there is no way around this. To argue otherwise is simply to ignore the language because it inconveniences your argument. In any case we are getting off topic, so I'm not going to reply to your arguments any longer if you wish to continue to debate this point about a privilege vs a responsibility.
VampyrBytes
This is a false analogy, there is no way to compare the incidental dangers of operating a car with those of a gun, they live in very separate worlds. Basic single shot or semi auto firearms take very little training to operate correctly and the extent of their direct interaction with other gun owners is don't. Whereas driving a car is a complex activity that requires significant direct interaction with other entities.
The point being that you expect one piece of potentially dangerous machinery to have checks and safeguards in place to make sure the operator won't be a risk to other people or themselves whilst using it, but the other should be available to anyone unless they've already proven they would be a risk.
Guns do have those checks and safeguards, they don't have the same number, but they don't need the same number, a car given typical usage scenarios is a more dangerous object. Note: I am abstracting here because as a mentioned earlier the two are hard to compare as they live in two very separate worlds, but given you essentially made the argument again I responded, even though I think the comparison is pretty meaningless.
In those gun already drawn situations, No- no gun was pulled on our side, because you are correct, guns are for getting control of the situation, shooting as an absolutely last resort, and multiple guns pulls can destabilize a situation, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to carry them.Guns don't make the act of just anyone killing just anyone easier, guns only make it easier to kill for someone with the conviction to kill already.
You're contradicting yourself here. You've admitted multiple guns destabalise situations, and yet think that the conviction to kill is still required. It's not. If someone is threatening your life or the lives of those you love, are you going to have an internal debate over whether you've got the conviction to kill someone, or are you just going to pull the trigger? I bet making that decision was easy, I know it was for me. The fact that guns are so common makes scenarios like that where instinct will take over far more likely, and it's far easier to kill instinctively than it is to kill with the conviction to kill, which is why most murders aren't premeditated.
At the end of the day if you're happy with the situation that's all that matters... personally there is no way in this world I would want to live in a society that my family was getting guns pulled on them, or where a child dies every three hours through gun accidents (and that's just accidents, not the school massacres you get)
I don't believe there is a contradiction here, I think the situation, much more than the guns themselves, are the cause of that destabilization, I should have been more clear on that. To be more clear: When two (or more even) parties are vying control for a situation it is easier for that situation to destabilize as each feel more threatened, thus giving both parties more conviction that they are defending themselves justifying an attempt to kill the other one.
As far as not wanting to live in a society where guns are pulled on me or my family, I agree, but rather than address a symptom, guns being pulled, I think the problem should be addressed: people have a disregard of human life/not enough respect for the power of a weapon. If guns are banned my mother and I still have them pulled on us. If guns never existed my mother and I have knives pulled on us... The issue isn't guns, it's attitude.
Also, your statistic is wrong, for ages 0-15 the rate per three hours of accidental death to fire arm is: 0.025. In other words roughly every 1 in 5 days. Still unfortunate? Yes, but nowhere near the one every three hours you quote.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf
-
"(Hint: humans aren't very good at blocking knife attacks)"
(Hint: Neither are they good at blocking bullets!)
And so you have gotten to the root of the problem, people oughtn't be attacking one another, with guns or otherwise.
"Also, save your straw-man for another day."
Well that's what a huge number of gun nuts in America say.
Never-the-less the argument is a straw-man (although perhaps more acutely an association fallacy), based off of the assumption that I was arguing for gun-rights because I'm an American and "Fuck yeah Jesus", used with derogatory intent to discredit the argument, in and of itself another fallacy: ad hominem. Although I will point out telling someone they are wrong just because they have a faith is ad hominem, but telling someone they are wrong because they predicated their argument on faith is not.
-
I see this as simple humanism, no need to attach the tag religion to it, it serves only to sully it. Also the hallmark of the Rastafari movement isn't love and peace, it's that they believe Haile Selassie, whose title and name before coronation as emperor of Ethiopia was Ras Tafari, the title (Ras) and first name (Tafari Makonnen), will lead the Rastafari to create a perfect world. Many of the faith also believe him to be the second coming of Christ.
While many Rastafari do believe in love and peace, most notably Bob Marley, it's not central premise, and doesn't deserve to be attributed in everything/anything that includes 'love and peace'.
-
VampyrBytes
Ok Index, going to try and make you see how this argument seems to non-americans. Read the bit I've quoted again, but this time apply it to cars instead of guns. I'm willing to bet you would find that ridiculous, and that's with something that isn't designed to kill.
This is a false analogy, there is no way to compare the incidental dangers of operating a car with those of a gun, they live in very separate worlds. Basic single shot or semi auto firearms take very little training to operate correctly and the extent of their direct interaction with other gun owners is don't. Whereas driving a car is a complex activity that requires significant direct interaction with other entities.
Did either of you pull a gun on them back? I'd put a lot of money on the fact that you didn't, because if you had someone would have ended up dead. If someone pulls a gun on you, 99% of the time its as a way of taking control of the situation, rather than in order to use it. If you then pull a gun on them, you take that control away and the only way they can get that control back is to pull the trigger. The same goes for your needing a gun to deal with violent non gun wielding people, just with the shoe on the other foot, now it's you trying to take control, and if they pull on you you're the one that is forced into pulling the trigger. Either way around the item that you say is for self defense leads to the outcome being far worse than if it hadn't have been presentIn those gun already drawn situations, No- no gun was pulled on our side, because you are correct, guns are for getting control of the situation, shooting as an absolutely last resort, and multiple guns pulls can destabilize a situation, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to carry them.
Radman2307
Guns make the act of killing very, very easy - compare shooting someone to stabbing them, the act of stabbing someone is much, much harder to accomplish then pulling the trigger on a firearm, when you're stood ten feet away - it hardly takes any effort at all to squeeze a trigger.
Guns don't make the act of just anyone killing just anyone easier, guns only make it easier to kill for someone with the conviction to kill already. The problem isn't gun ownership but rather lack of respect for human life. Killing someone without a gun is still very easy (once you get past the moral convictions which are the only hard part no matter whether it's with a gun, knife, etc.) (Hint: humans aren't very good at blocking knife attacks), I can link you to a website to show you if you would like, but we're both civilized people here so I'll only PM the link you if you ask.
But this is where we hit logger-heads. In America it is seen as a 'right' to own a firearm, it is 'God given' that ALL Americans (unless you're a convicted felon) can lawfully own a firearm - land of the free and all that.
In the UK and most of the developed western world it isn't seen as a RIGHT, owning a firearm is seen as a RESPONSIBILITY.
See the difference?
Also, save your straw-man for another day, I'm an atheist; I don't believe this non-existent god gave me any rights, any I have come from my mutual contract with other member of my society.
Really the only country I would say considers it a responsibility to own a firearm is Switzerland, having a responsibility to own a firearm means you are leagaly, morally or ethically required to do so, not just having the option. In the UK you have what is called a privilege. So with the spider-man rhetoric striped I'll wait to make a reply to this part of the comment until you choose assert it again sans theatrics.
-
Instead of using a different map, would it not be possible to batch-remove the items at round start?
Very very lag-prohibitive.
-
As someone who has committed to the codebase (although only very slightly) it's very hard to motivate yourself to fix someone else's code, even more so for parts of the game you don't use/don't care about. Anyone who has the stomach for bug-fixing other people's code I invite you to please help with the bug fixes, otherwise just let us know they exist and stop harping on about them.
On-topic:
I would like to see Internal Affairs have the power they need to actually function in a meaningful way. I would also like to see space become the hostile environment it should be.
-
Every time you want to switch maps you need to recompile, and that would be annoying, it doesn't take very long, but cant be easily automated.
-
I think vigilantes are cool, but I trust almost no one to do them well. The only way I would be willing to have vigilantes allowed on the station is if it was a special role you had to be white-listed by an admin to use.
-
00110001 00110010 00111001, Challenge time.
-
Again whilst I'm not the biggest fan of the types of gun control we have in Britain there DOES need to be some form of gun control - guns should not be available to everyone and the whole 'argument' that guns are a necessity to maintain freedom ect is mute these days, unless you have a standing army, air force, navy, chemical weapons ect there is no way a civilian population would be able to stand against a corrupt government, that point actually sounds quite silly to the rest of the world.
In the UK in order to apply for a Shotgun License you need:
1. To be vetted by the police.
2. Have a person who has known you for five years to sign you off as being responsible to own a shotgun (person must be 'of good standing' within the community - Doctor, Dentist, Business Owners, Civil Servant ect.)
3. Have a safe place to secure your shotgun in your home (firearms cabinet.)
Fairly sensible if you ask me.
I think a much more sensible route is a check for DIS-qualification rather than a check for qualification.
1.) Check criminal record
2.) Check psychiatric record
There is no reason to keep people from owning a gun for sport or defense unless they have proven incapable of ownership.
Also, before you argue guns aren't needed for defense, consider you probobly live in a nice neighborhood with people who for the most part obey the law. My mother and I work in the appraisal business and we deal with both rednecks and ghetto peoples and have had 3 pistols and a shotgun pulled on us in the last 2 years and I can all but guarantee only the shotgun was bought legally. We have had to deal with probably 20-30 violent non-gun wielding occupants in that same time frame, we have a strong need for defense, but neither of us are fit enough to engage in physical combat with most of the violent occupants we encounter, most are highly muscled people of at least 6' who grew up on the streets fighting.
-
There used to be a gun culture in Australia. Then this happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthu ... (Australia)
The government heavily tightened and restricted gun control, and used a buy-back scheme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... _Australia
Year after year of shootings! But then once gun control comes in, they suddenly stop!
Their next big massacre weapon seems to be fires, maybe they should ban flint and steel too...
HRA Shift Report - 5:24 PM - 1/10/2563
in Stories of NSS Cyberiad
Posted · Edited by Index
Why, does it look like I don't
(Thanks, I'm just happy I at least put 19 not 18 XD)