Index

Members
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Index

  • Rank
    Jr. Member
  • Birthday 05/19/1992

Personal Information

  • Byond Account
    Indexlp

Recent Profile Visitors

324 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. A very very expensive addiction, do cocaine instead, it's cheaper and both are about equally as bad for your mental health.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. Index

    Day Z

    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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. Radman2307 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 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. 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