Discussion in 'Head Admin Applications (CLOSED!)' started by Taicho, Aug 14, 2014.
Also I do believe Connor would be the most qualified out of all the applicants right now.
Alright then +1 for this gent.
Althought I had my falling with Rawr, notably one peculiar handling cases in public before realising the context of said case, causing me to appear in bad view, he's proved to be able to listen to reason and to change his ideas, able to uphold and explain his choices and actions during my time with him, eventually causing me to agree with him. He's shown to be a good diplomat and able to handle case involving moral issues.
However, the low level of activity and the sometimes passive-agressiveness emanating from Rawr dosen't make him one person that should be Headmin. I will abstain my vote but I think my reasons why needed to be stated.
Could you clarify? I'm don't think I really know what you're talking about.
1) Have you played lately, besides admining? If not, why?
2) Which IC names do you regularly use?
3) Which jobs do you pick, and why?
4) What activities usually take most of your time while playing (chasing criminal scum, breeding slimes, greytiding, drinking fuel...)?
5) Have you been antag lately? How was that?
6) How do you feel with the current rules and what would you change?
7) How far will a player have to go to get banned or job-banned?
8) What is the minimal responsibility of someone picking an important job in the station (AI, Captain, CE, Sec Officer...)?
Unfortunately I haven't played many full rounds lately. It's not that I don't enjoy the game, because I do, otherwise I wouldn't maintain any involvement with it, but I personally find it quite repetitive. A round or two every now and again suits me, but after five years of SS13 it's lost the novelty it once had. There's also all the problems that come with it, that result in much more stress than it's probably worth. For now, until we see New Source launch, and an influx of new features come with it, I'm content handling the maintenance and administration side of things, with the odd game thrown in here and there to entertain myself.
Previously, I used the name Porter Reynolds, the blue-haired miscreant who'd be causing unfathomable amounts of trouble for Security. The character I've always mainly used was Riley Rohtin, though I've since taken to random names for the sake of variety and avoiding any potential metagaming that comes with carrying a character across rounds.
Engineering has always been my first choice. I personally find it to be the most fun out of all available jobs. When you're not busy fixing an exploding station, or busy being the one to explode the station, you can usually always find a way to entertain yourself using the materials available to you across the station. From building secret arcade rooms to rebuilding the derelict, I find that I have the most fun with engineering.
Doing my job and building shit, naturally.
Nope. I usually have my antagonist preferences set to no.
I personally don't see a problem with what the rules cover. The things we prohibit are prohibited for a reason. One thing that has always been an issue is clarity in what violates those rules. Many things are subjective, and whether the breaking of a rule is deemed as punishable or not usually falls down to intent, but newer admins particular have difficulty deciding what is 'bad intent'. The idea of two sets of rules -- an abridged, and unabridged -- worked well, and I think it needs to be pursued once more. A basic set that simply underlines the server rules in their most basic form is, of course, necessary, but with the lack of documentation, constantly changing policies, and other miscellaneous relic rules that seemed to be brought up on whim means there will need to be another separate document, mostly for administrators, though accessible by players too, that provides a more elaborate explanation of the rules with a few separate examples, which administrators can add on to, to allow the staff to make a more clear judgement using resources that are set in stone. This would be an abridged rule-set, or an FAQesque document for the purpose of clarity.
I, personally, am a very lenient person. If an individual is genuinely apologetic, or otherwise sincere in their promises never to commit the action again, I am more than happy to let them off with nothing more than a note on their record. When a rule has blatantly been broken that warrants some form of punishment and the individual shows no remorse for their actions and refuses to accept that they were, indeed, in the wrong, it becomes something of an issue for me. To say I use banning as a deterrent would be incorrect, and it would likely be more accurate for me to say I instead use it as a warning and a means of reflection so that they understand that they were in fact wrong and they need to avoid doing it again, because it's detrimental to people's playing experience. I understand that everyone has bad days and not everybody breaks rules with the intent to ruin everyone's game, though, which is why I tend to be more lenient in my approach to punishment.
Simply doing their job to the best of their ability. The AI should be following its laws, Heads of Staff should be ensuring their departments are actually doing their jobs, Security Officers should be following space law. Each and every one needs to be acting within server rules as a -minimal responsibility-. That said, people have a right to play how they want, and as a Light RP server, I wouldn't punish them if they weren't focusing on their job completely. So long as they aren't violating our rules and aren't ruining gameplay for others, they're a-okay in my books.
This is a "fail" in the IMVader scale. Admins are supposed to play, not only admin, for their admining to make sense (in my opinion, of course. Else we get alienated admins that lose the point of view of the player. -1
Haven't seen those games, would like more information on how much chaos you caused to security, and do not personally approve the random names.
Do you always go SE or do you choose CE or any other jobs regularly?
Do you set the engine? Repair things around the station, like hull breaches, cut cables or broken pipes?
Same as point 1. -1
I like this answer and I hope to see you working on the rules, as Headmin or just admin. +1
I also like this one, though I don't remember seeing you answering any of my AHelps (I have terrible memory, so meh). +1
The question is not what would be the ideal for them to do, but what is minimum required by the server for them to do. Can the AI stay all round just observing and not taking a single action? Can it choose which commands to follow as long as it doesn't harm people? Can security just observe how people get murdered without moving a finger, as long as they do not actively grief innocents? Can both captain and hop log into the round and space themselves without a word, with the spare ID, leaving no full-access IDs in the station, for example?
Admins don't need to play any more than players need to play. If a player no longer wishes to play, they don't play, yet can still fraternize around the community and go about any other activities it may bring. Similarly, an administrator has no obligation to play constantly. Having played the game for five years, I can assure you there's no 'losing the point of view of the player'. Before I was an admin, I was a player. I am a player of many other games. My focus on administration and maintenance makes no difference in that. A fair point regardless.
You don't have to approve the random names. Switching characters frequently adds variety to my gameplaying experience. Rarely do I stick with one character in any game; MMO's, MOBA's, RPG's -- I like the variety that difference in character brings. Porter Reynolds was my character back when Powerful Station was up in place of LS13. Ancient and I, or rather Porter Reynolds and Alan McCoy, would often find ourselves arrested for causing a ruckus in the bar. Whether it be from bar fighting with each other, or mugging the Bartender for all his alcohol, one way or another, we'd find ourselves on the prison station, which was a separate 'satellite' the north of the main station. In the prisoner area there was a disposal chute, wherein time and time again we'd launch ourselves out of it, hit the station, and circle the perimeter of the station all the way to escape and get back in, alive. Security then, naturally, proceeded to arrest us once more, wherein we'd break out again. It was extremely fun, and was back in the days when space did mediocre damage.
No. Like anything, too much of one thing is tiring. Whilst SE and CE would be my primary choices, I've played Perseus a lot in the past, despite often veering away from Security. Science can be fun here and there, though it all got a bit boring when I learned all there is to learn about it. Botany is something I unfortunately never got to dabble with much, aside from growing like a thousand bananas for 3 Honk Mech's. That was nice.
Naturally -- I do enjoy when people actually do their jobs. Whenever I do play, any spare time between the station falling apart is spent creating fun new rooms around the station using the gear from engineering and tech storage. All very fun.
Scrutiny over personal preference in not wishing to play an antagonist role seems... odd.
Thank you again.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a game, and as long as people are acting within server rules, they are entitled to play how they wish. In an ideal world, I'd prefer everybody did their jobs instead of incessant dickery all round. Yes, I would rather the AI follow their laws to the best of their ability, assisting the crew in any way it can with the slightest slither of snark as it does as long as it sticks to its laws. Not doing a thing to help would, in some way, violate its laws. No, of course not, they're security, and their job is to stop that from happening. In my opinion, watching it happen and not preventing it is as good as assisting in it. The Captain and Head of Personnel should not be allowed to do that, and them leaving the station in any capacity has always been frowned upon. As I say, in an ideal world, everybody would do their jobs alongside the usual shittery SS13 brings without all the little irritations that brings, but this is a Light RP server and so long as players are having fun, aren't ruining the experience for others and our following the rules, I have no desire to step in and change that.
Thank you for your questions. I hope my responses have been enlightening.
The IMVader Scale of Awesomeness reserves the right to hold its own standards, regardless of what is allowed or not by the rules of the server. That said, it is just my opinion and nobody can fully please both Greeks and Trojans, they say.
I'm not trying to encourage you to do or say as I please, merely to be as transparent as possible regarding my preferences. If you have any doubts or concerns, I'm more than willing to answer.
Would you consider yourself someone others would have fun playing with? Not only Ancient and those helping you, of course.
This sounds like a balanced game-experience. What I support. +1
I personally like and support this attitude too. +1
How would you recommend admins act in front of: (A) an AI that won't follow orders (or will selectively pick whose orders to follow, by sympathy rather than logic), (B) a HoS that stands idly while a sec officer strips naked and gives 15 minutes to the clown for having slipped him, (C) a HoP that gives himself all access, raids EVA, Teleporter and EVA, and goes for space adventures, (D) a security officer that simply watches as a HoS executes peoples for minor crimes and takes no action? I understand your general logic, but would like to see some specific situations to have a clearer image.
I'm not sure, it depends what people look for in 'playing buddies'. I personally like to engage in activities that are fun for a few different people, and create some form of entertainment for all. For example, in the past, station thievery was something one of my 'Jones' characters was known for. Many have heard the tales of the Jones family, but few live to tell the tale... well, not really. It consisted of planning and staging elaborate heists to steal valuable objects across the station in a manner that wouldn't particularly ruin anyone's gameplay, per se. Usually, we got a lot of people involved, starting a bit of a ruckus at one side of the station int he form of a verbal bitch war that sparked tensions, whilst we expertly stole the item from the other side -- not as expertly as we'd like, because Security usually always embarked on high speed pursuits and caught us. When there is no means of entertainment present, I like to create my own fun, for myself and those playing with me. Also, I like to think myself competent, which hopefully would hopefully make playing with me a pleasant experience because... well, nobody likes an engineering that starts the Singularity up whilst you're still setting the containment field. Being sucked into it, and then fired off to the derelict is very irritating.
I agree. Stagnation is an unfortunate thing, so a little variation here and there to keep things fresh certainly goes a long way.
This is also unfortunate.
A) Personally, I would simply recommend they approach the AI and inform him that refusing to follow any orders whatsoever is breaking its laws. I've always found the AI laws to be flawed, and rightly so, because the Three Laws of Robotics were designed intentionally to be flawed with an abundance of loopholes. Unfortunately, this creates issues from the perspective of admins. On one hand, individuals can interpret the laws however they wish, as long as they remain within server rules. On the other, even if they act within the rules, it can still create issues from a gameplay perspective. I personally trust admins to be able to gauge intent, and in the event the AI was regarding its laws or acting on orders selectively with negative intent, I would advise admins to speak with them and inform them of were they are going wrong. A little nudge in the right direction so they are aware of what is required of them as AI in regards to their laws. I find punishment in this sort of case is only required when their actions are of negative intent, are breaking the rules, and is blatantly ruining the playing experience for a large group of people.
B) In this regard, I'm more inclined to say dealing of the Security Officer takes priority, but if Head of Security cannot perform even the basics of his job and keep his officers in check, and this is reported by a player, I would again recommend administrators give them a little nudge in the right direction. There are expectations of those who picks Head of Staff roles especially, and if they are causing problems in these roles, such as in the scenario you underlined, they need to be informed of what they're doing wrong and nudged in the right direction.
C) A warning would come first in the form of a stern talking to, and if the player at hand had a habit of ignoring their role over and over to loot items, give themselves all access and dick around in space, I would consider a jobban. It seems unfair for them to take up the slot of an important role, only to disregard said role completely for their own personal enjoyment at the expense of others'.
D) I think this one is... tricky. On the one hand, it is very unrealistic for a Security Officer to disregard chain of command enough to actively attack their Head of Security and arrest them. The Officer isn't so much to blame, and in this case, punishment of the Head of Security takes priority. However, as a Security Officer, it is, indeed, your job to uphold the law, regardless of who it is breaking it. Whilst this most certainly doesn't warrant a jobban unless they had direct involvement in the grief, again, it'd worth messaging them and setting them on the right track. It may be difficult for an Officer to make a judgement in this situation because they have no knowledge of whether the Captain, or Acting Captain, authorised it or not, and any other crimes the individual may have committed. Administrators shouldn't only 'deliver justice' as it were, they should also serve as 'guides' and 'helpers', and if speaking to a Security Officer is the difference between that Officer going on to be jobbanned and ruining peoples game as a result of lack of understanding and becoming one of the servers better Security players, I'd save a discussion between admin and player would go a long way.
I would think it's fairly important for an admin to experience the game, not every single day, but occasionally. To feel out how players interact and how policies hold.
This is even more important for a headmin and project leader to see how everything is working.
This shouldn't be treated as some position you can sit behind a desk send out demands, expecting them to be met properly. Reading and participating on the forums is fine and dandy but you should be personally involved in the game.
And I fear that some applicants who are saying they will play the game more will only last as long as this whole deal is being decided on. Or whoever is accepted will only degrade back into his old level of activity after the polish of his new title wears off.
Don't take this the wrong way, I have full trust that you are a great guy, coder, admin, and possibly a great admin by what everyone says, but, I frankly don't really know you, i've only talked to you a few times, and it was never really just a conversation, all my conversations with you seemed to have a strict business attitude and then you were gone when business was done. I'd honestly like our headmin to be someone really approachable, and kinda active with the player base. Don't get offended though, this could just be my personal experience. You may be a very active guy with the community and everyone knows you really well. After all, I'm not even around as often as I used to anymore, and I do hear a lot that I am not a very likable person, that could also be a reason we never talk. But, based upon my own experiences...
Interesting you say this. I didn't think it was suggested or even implied that this is how the position would be treated. A valid concern nevertheless, though I'm more than aware a position can't be performed to the best of your ability if you're unaware of the 'bigger picture'. I never claimed I would be permanently on the server, but in the same regard, I'd be lying if I said a conscious effort won't be made to ensure I am aware of what goes on, and from the different perspectives of players. In fact, I think initiative and a hands-on approach is the best way for a leader to perform to the best of their ability in their chosen role -- it's how I've always performed in leadership roles, but then, I've never been with the game/communities for years straight.
If you've approached me regarding a complaint or something of the sort, then naturally, I'm going to treat it with the utmost seriousness. I'm fairly sure most people who know me among the community can vouch that I'm more than approachable, irregardless of whether or not I treat what I do seriously when it comes down to it, and when it's needed. Unfortunate that we've never have a proper conversation, though. You're more than welcome to throw me a message -- it'll be a change from those big babies in admin chat.
Thanks for your feedback, folks.
Alright, this sums it up well for me. +1
B) Assume Sec Officer's actions are legit (antag) and HoS simply doesn't care. Then what?
D) Assume HOS' actions are legit (antag) and Captain is unresponsive. Assume Sec Officer doesn't care either.
Once more, it's a shame we don't share the same point of view here. A question in response so I can better understand your opinion, though: Are you suggesting Hattrick is unfit to lead Perseus, Spoffy is unfit to direct the development team, and Don Zombie is unfit to manage the project as a whole because none of them constantly play the game? If I'm misinterpreting I do apologise but I'm curious to see your stance on this.
B) Tricky to make a judgement on, most definitely. As it is the antagonist committing the action, there is very little you can do in this regard. The Head of Security should potentially be asked to revise Space Law before playing... well, the Head of Security, because if they are allowing something like that then their understanding of the role is definitely minimal, and they are going to create a bad atmosphere for others as a result. With them likely not knowing the Officer is an antagonist, there is nothing you can do in the way of 'assisting' them. A stern warning and a little bit of guidance with a note applied to their to inform any administrators that may have to deal with the individual in the future that they are performing in a manner unfitting of a head of staff.
D) In the event the Captain is unresponsive, and there's no Head of Personnel stepping in to fill, the Head of Security is technically able to authorise execution. In this case, with the HoS being an antagonist, it seems like there's very little the Security Officer could do regardless. They have sentenced a criminal to execution, and whilst the Security Officer should technically prevent it to first get to the bottom of why this execution was warranted, there's little administration can do apart from informing the Officer they may wish to educate themselves and find out just what actually warrants execution at the risk of unintentionally hinting that the Head is an antagonist, and that their actions are valid, but you should still read up on this stuff!
I'm very lenient, and I think everybody has the capacity to learn from their mistakes, which is why discussing and informing would always be my first port of call. These things are, pretty much, inherently shit things for the individuals to allow, but as the ones committing the act are antagonists, no major punishment seems necessary unless it is an ongoing trend and the player seems to have no knowledge of Space Law whatsoever, which is why they're letting it happen. Then it may be worth considering taking further action in the event playing experience is being harmed as a result. That said, we need to consider that turning against your Head of Staff is a crime in its own right, so there's really nothing wrong with not wanting to throw yourself in front of the bullet for the sake of 'JUSTICE!!!!'
I agree with this.
Joining the game to observe it 3-4 times a week shouldn't be a big problem. If I was never in the admin and dev team, I would probably never see you besides forums.
I know that 5 years is a long time, but you really need to visit LS-13 once and a while to check things out.
You are a great admin(in adminchat wise) and a great guy, however, if you don't observe the game, I can't give you my support.
A fair comment, and as it stands currently, when I need to venture on to the server to do something, I will. I agree that a a conscious effort needs to be made to actually observe things on the server, though. Thanks for your input.
SO MANY WORDS.
Separate names with a comma.