Fox McCloud

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About Fox McCloud

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. it was a relic. You find them in maintenance. What they do though has to be discovered by the EXPERIMENTOR in science. What they do, however, is random, so you're never guaranteed to get the relic that does as you describe.
  2. This is something that's probably going to be debated, endlessly, by both sides, with regards to strong/hard AI; is it really conscious, or is an approximation that only gives the impression that it is? Even if it's an approximation, is that still something worth extending the status of sentience (and therefore, right, perhaps) to? Who knows. There's no test for consciousness/sentience/sapience at the moment; we really only know that we, ourselves (as a singular individual) have it; we can't even be sure that anyone else has it (though thinking no one else has it could lead you to engage in some pretty terrible actions, and if you're incorrect, well...I think you can see where I"m going with this). There's also the technical issue. Is consciousness even able to be replicated by a computer? We have few ideas how the brain works at the moment; we can pin things down to sectors of the brain, we can correlate behaviors and quirks and abnormalities to particular sections, but once you start delving down into the nitty gritty? We don't know. What makes a particular set of neurons behave the way they do? What causes a neuron to "decide" when to fire (what causes it to react its action potential?). Is it purely based on outside influence (ie: other neurons), or does the neuron have some internal mechanism that we haven't really been able to peer into yet, because it's on the atomic level inside the neuron? We have no idea.Hell, the neuron could operate on the quantum level, according to some neurological researchers. So the simple answer is: we don't know. Hopefully we will find out some day, because it would be nice to know what is sentient/sapient/conscious, and what is just a mechanistic machine that has zero actual personal experience, even if it can output in some communicative way that it does. tl;dr. Realistically, who knows. That said, this is SS13. It doesn't have the same rules as our universe. Souls are objectively true and real, supernatural entities provably exist, farts can be weaponized, magic is real, flipping is physically easy, ghosts exist. We can just hand-wave anything and say it exists/is real precisely because it's a fictional world.
  3. You can. This has been a feature, forever. Use a multitool on the cyborg suit item.
  4. (1) Not really possible, as antag selection happens before job selection now. (2) Even if it were possible, the "screw antags; they ruin the game" crowd will actively latejoin as sec just to keep antag numbers low or stack things to their advantage. There's far too many problems with this to even remotely be feasible, and that's assuming I agree with this notion to begin with (I don't).
  5. I've always been the biggest supporter of Rev. It's easily by favorite mode and probably in my top 4 antags. The mode has been through various tweaks and iterations, but I've never been able to persuade enough over to my side on its merits. I've always been confused by those who embrace, heavily, Shadowling and Cult, but are vehemently opposed to rev. There's wider conflict, but it's still, at its core the same thing: variations of TDM. Rev ramps up things quicker and makes the round progress faster into a more chaotic form, but, at its core, it's not much different from the others (especially Shadowling). The only time I have problems with Rev are when it stretches beyond the hour mark; either side stalling forever isn't very pleasant; the game mode is meant to be high-stakes, bloody, and quick; not a long drawn out process of infinite turtling.
  6. An even better idea: actually having the department that has the responsibility of taking care of the problem their job was designed for to handle it. I apologize for the bit of snark, but really, I don't understand, at all, this notion of "let's add an existing job to my department only it's loyal to my department alone". No department is meant to be an island unto itself; no department is meant to be immune to the risks and incompetencies of having to deal with another department; security is no exception. Before someone brings up how ridiculous science can get at times; that's not an excuse for other departments to be just as ridiculous. You don't resolve a problem by creating another similar problem so they're both equal; you resolve the problem where it occurs. I'm further perplexed why this mentality crops up specifically with regards to security as a department; what is it that somehow set security apart from needing/deserving their own special role within that department? (The only exception I can recall is a few very very brief suggestion for a mining doctor). If that's the case, why shouldn't medical get their own engineering job, loyal to medical? Why shouldn't mining get their own science researcher role? Why shouldn't science get their own security officer *loyal only to them*? What is it about security, as a department, that specifically draws people to want to make it self-sufficient?
  7. I can just about guarantee what will happen with the "Brig Technician"; invariably, he'd probably have basic engineering access, much like the brig physician has basic medbay access. On the whole, much like the brig physician, there's not going to be a whole lot of pressure or responsibility except when things go wrong in a major way (ie: sec gets bombed or something). This gives them an incredibly amount of free time to do whatever he wants. We already know what this leads to, with the Brig physician. The job was originally created to patch up beat up/hurt suspects/detained individuals, not security personnel. What the brig physician has become is security's private medical doctor, with setups like this considered something noble to aim for: I can easily see things developing the same way for this job. The pitch is that it's to help security patch up/fix up things that go wrong. It may very well be that, at first, but having access and tools (not to mention a huge one; legitimacy via antag immunity and mindshield) will see said individual helping out security via other means. My best guess? The "gold standard" for a brig technician will end up being raiding tech storage and building security their own personal R&D lab. It also has another nasty feedback loop in that it makes it even easier for the Brig physician to do the above because it provides an easier method for acquiring various medical circuits. Another issue is that it's also going to provide security with a dedicated, go-to, trustworthy hacker for breaking into just about anywhere. This is what I'm getting at with self-sufficiency. Small, seemingly innocent additions can have large impacts on the behavior that develops within a department. Brig physician is a key example of this.
  8. Absolutely not. One of the reasons science is so reviled is that they're not only strong, but one of the more self-sufficient departments. Making departments more self-sufficient is a step in the wrong direction. Departments are meant to have to rely on others when things go awry or mistakes are made. This self-sufficiency does exist, to a certain degree, in all departments, but that's not a reason to expand it. Overall, there should probably be a reduction in self-sufficiency, not an increase of it.
  9. Right. My two cents. Keep it off. I've always been a strong supporter of this policy while at paradise; while I learned to play SS13 on an OOC friendly server and strongly favored it being enabled, once I started playing on Goon, my mind changed. While, yes, there are amusing conversations and tidbits to be had from OOC, on the whole, more often than not, it tends to be a distraction from the in-round events and going's on than an actual help. It also creates more administrative burden for the admins and one additional information channel we have to keep track of. While this may not seem like much to the average player (even then, I disagree here, but to each their own), but to an admin, the amount of information spewed at us is patently ridiculous. OOC, regular in-game chat, admin chat, mentor chat, dead chat, game event logs, attack logs, explosion logs, some extremely important debug logs that even regular non-coder admins need to see. Adding one more bit of information here just exacerbate that overload. There's opportunity cost for everything. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Every moment that an admin spends keeping an eye on and maintaining OOC is that same moment they aren't spending on administrating the events or keeping an eye on the events, in game. While there may be some who disagree with me, as a normative standard, I think it's more important we focus on what impacts the players playing the game more than those discussing things on some level above the game (even more so when, again, we have a Discord). From a player perspective, it's much easier to concentrate on in-game events and not have your immersion broken by huge blue text---which almost never has anything to do with the going's on's of in-game events. You know that person who starts blaring silly music in the middle of some role-playing game or who's phone goes off in the middle of a movie theatre with shockingly disparate music? That's OOC. Yeah, it may not be quite that offensive, but it does divide player attention (again, opportunity cost!), and ultimately pulls player's focus away from in-game action and in-game roleplay. You also have scenarios and situations whereby, if OOC is optional, it's your personal preference to have it off, but it's non-optimal (from a social maximization standpoint) to do so because of the lost opportunities from numerous important game-related discussion had within the game; ergo, more often than not people keep it on than otherwise would. Community cohesion and unity can still be easily maintained if you have a central gathering point. Back when we didn't have a Discord, and the IRC was pretty much a hidden group of just a dozen or so people? Yeah, I could understand the argument for keeping OOC for the social benefit of the server. That's no longer the case though; the Discord is heavily populated and widely advertised. tl; dr. Keeping OOC off is a great step towards integrating players better into the server from a gameplay and roleplay standpoint. On a lesser note, it means admins will be able to better focus on in-game problems (or events), rather than having yet another information stream that they have to monitor and oversee.
  10. We handle overpopulation via listing/de-listing, not job capping.
  11. Yeah, there should be. If they're not uncapped, people will ultimately pick a job they don't actually want, then immediately request demotion---and that's at best. They could also just pick the job and faff about doing what they really want to do until they're fired, or, at worst, be a total nuisance. Forcing someone to play a job doesn't make them happier for doing so; it just makes them resentful. Not all assistants are murderous greytiding jerks; some people just want to interact with other people how they may without responsibility--others are not inclined to the rigid structure that a traditional job imposes and would prefer to work more chaotically where they're needed at a given time. Others still have played for such length that they find the specific job of assistant to be appealing in and of itself, rather than other jobs. There's also the fact that I don't think someone should be locked out of the game once all job slots are exhausted. Due to the breadth and many criterion that pull people towards assistant (I'd argue more than most other jobs), I strongly believe that it should be uncapped; security officers should scale with total assistants, not the other way around.
  12. Forcing people to go along with your roleplay is a great way to come across as a jerk. Likewise it's counter-productive. Making someone behave or engage in actions against their will typically only breeds resentment; they're probably going to end up hating you for your actions, and, worse yet, they're probably going to end up being less inclined to roleplay after having you force an experience onto them. Why? Because it becomes a case of "If this is what roleplay is about; forcing others to comply with what they believe is good roleplay, then I want to have nothing to do with it". Force and aggression are rarely a good tool for convincing people to engage in behaviors you want. I'd also point out that it's a doubled-edged sword; you forcing someone to RP in a particular way inherently means that you're making the value judgment of what constitutes and is the "proper" way to roleplay. This is going to vary from person to person, and even two more heavily leaning roleplayers are ultimately going to have different answers on the "proper" way to behave in a given situation. Going one step further, I also think it's disingenuous to engage in this behavior because behind it, it assumes, to a degree, that everyone should react in the same pre-scripted way in a stilted manner to particular events. This is not only unrealistic, but a bit dishonest. Not everyone is bothered by the same things; not everyone is going to have an outburst at someone dying; some will internalize it, some will just be uncomfortable---others don't have much of a care. One-size-fits all just doesn't work.
  13. For all intents and purposes, ghosts and spirits are canon in SS13. While you may personally reject them as existing or refuse to acknowledge them for your own personal RP narrative, you are ultimately rejecting the objective truth of the nature of how things play out on Paradise. It's quite easy to demonstrate, in multiple ways, that ghosts/spirits are a thing: - The existence of ghost interacting with lights - A number of cult mechanics, including the pulling in of ghosts back to the "physical plane" - Scrying orb is a big one; this explicitly lets wizards leave their body and look around; they can also interact with deadchat and glean any information the ghosts know and use that information to influence the round; non-wizards who get a hold of a scrying orb are also allowed to do this (yes, this means you can use the orb, ask ghosts "where is the wizard", then act on that info they tell you, without fear of getting bwoinked, but again, this is ONLY with the scrying orb) - While not officially merged in, the Devil Game mode touches on this even more; it explicitly has souls as a thing core to the game mechanics--it also strongly supports the notion that souls are required for there to be sentient beings. With regard to cloning it can definitely, objectively, be stated that souls do, in fact, exist, and that someone does, in fact, require one to be alive and sentient; the cloning mechanic, itself, stipulates this, as does the Devil game mode (can't be cloned if you sold your soul). I do think it is, given the way the game is structured, perfectly legitimate to assert ICly, that anyone who denies this or sets forth a purely "physical" version of the mind is a "soul denier"; that said I don't think this fact should be enforced, RP wise, that everyone has to and should accept that there are ethereal souls. Even with cloning removed, I would suggest that this paradigm would still remain in place, largely because of other mechanics and the existence of several game modes. As for how this impacts cloning. Well, there's a number of argument to be made here, I feel, both for and against remembering things before you died. Just because it can be proven there are souls doesn't necessarily mean that the memories would follow through from physical to soul back to physical. Here on Paradise, we do allow you to engage in this behavior. I do personally feel that the "soul" does retains the memories of the person, which is why whether you're pre-scanned vs post-scanned doesn't matter. If you're only regenerating the body, itself; the core essence of a person is still ultimately attached to the soul of the individual. I think this is demonstrable in the fact that "notes" can be created and altered yet still retained prior to and after resurrection. The weakness of this argument, of course, is "why can't you remember things while you were a soul". I admit, I don't have a good reason to back this up, especially not from a mechanical standpoint. Regardless of how the argument of "would you remember or not?" is approached, I do think it can be argued well that, factually, yes, all cloned individuals are the same person as they were prior to their death; they aren't a completely new person. Again, yes, I do posit that you could argue that someone who insists otherwise is a "soul denier", but, again, I don't think this should be enforced by administration (that is to say, if you want to deny the existence of soul and insist that you're a new being, that's fine, though it would be "objectively" wrong from an IC standpoint). Also, I'll clarify that the above argument is limited only to SS13; I'm not saying "this extends to real life". LIkewise, I don't think you can make the argument, legitimately and honestly, that "well, that's not realistic" or "That's not how it works in real life." It's demonstrably true that SS13's laws ("the universe") is fundamentally different from that of the real universe. I think it's safe to make the argument "I wish SS13 was more realistic and didn't have/did have X"; however, outright rejecting the laws of SS13 merely because you don't like them/favor it being "more realistic" is patently false and engaging in denialism.