Happy_Fox Interview

OwiviaToday at 10:09 AM
Alright.
First thing's first!
Can you give me your ckey?
CFToday at 10:09 AM
Happy_Fox
OwiviaToday at 10:10 AM
And your Discord tag?
CFToday at 10:10 AM
CF#4818
OwiviaToday at 10:10 AM
Okie
So, the interview is gonna be split into two parts
The first one is going to be some scenarios, where I'll play the bwoink-ee, and you'll play the bwoink-er. The second part is going to be some questions regarding your opinions on things. Sound good?
CFToday at 10:11 AM
Yup!
OwiviaToday at 10:12 AM
Okay!
As a moderator, here are the following perms you have:

- Access to msay. It allows you to speak with other staff members.
- Access to dsay. Self-explanatory, you see the deadchat and can even speak in it.
- Access to in game logs about a lot of things. This include LOOC, dchat, admin actions(like kick, ban, note, warn) and some things to prevent grief. Imagine Urist McUrist open a phoron tank you'll have a message stating it. Same for a fuel tank or a valve of any kind.
- Access the variables of the objects on the server. While you cannot edit them, you can view attack logs on a player, who touched what the last, etc.
- The ability to adminghost, basically will consider you as if you ghosted from the lobby or died. You can aghost again to re-enter your body.
- The ability to Wind people. It freeze them and keep them from interacting with the game.
- The possibility to AdminPM someone, and check all the tickets that have been made on the server.
- The ability to kick, note, warn, ban. More in-depth about this:
Kick = Just boot someone off the server. You can set a custom message. It's not really used often, but still useful to get someone's attention.
Note = It's basically our notepad about players. It's useful for the other staff that will interact with the player, to know their behaviour and if something already happened before.
Warning = Depending the severity of something, it can be directly a warning. This one is visible to the player, and they need to acknowledge it to play on the server again.
Ban = Same thing as kick expect on a larger scale, or even permanently. A ban is often an escalation of warnings.
Every action taken by a staff member is visible on the player's ckey. Only kicks are not shown.
I may have forgot some, but these are the most important. Before we start, any questions?
CFToday at 10:13 AM
No, that all seems straightforward. I've used some of these in a test server before.
OwiviaToday at 10:14 AM
Alright!
Let's start off easy. You're observing a round, and someone named "Captain Crunch" joins the round. What do you do?
CFToday at 10:17 AM
Check the players notes to see if they've done this sort of thing in the past or have any sort of record of disobeying the rules. If they haven't done this before its possible they don't know the rules, in which case I would AdminPM them to ask them if they're aware of the rule regarding appropriate names - and explain it if necessary and remind them to read the rules. Once I've understood the player in question (their experience, record, understanding of the issue) I'll ask them to resolve the issue by going into cryo and re-joining with an appropriate name.
And I would also add a note to their ckey regarding it if they haven't got a record. Depending on their record the response may change if they've had multiple warnings about it.
or notes
OwiviaToday at 10:18 AM
They are a 50 day old account with no notes on them at all. They do not respond to your adminPM, and instead start beating themselves over the head with a toolbox.
CFToday at 10:21 AM
Wind them to stop any further disruption of the game. Contact them again after winding. If they still don't respond then I'd act appropriately. Without knowing the correct response for it (like now) I would use msay to check first from a more experienced staff member before acting. But I'd imagine probably warn and kick them if they refused to respond, then cryo their character.
But I'd like to be sure of the appropriate response before doing anything if its possible to check at the moment without disrupting the game for others.
OwiviaToday at 10:24 AM
Just do what feels right for now. After you wind them, they respond to your message and say "wtf"
CFToday at 10:27 AM
I'd explain that they've been winded to pause their characters actions - then ask them if they were aware of the rules relating to appropriate character names and then why they were hitting themselves over the head with a toolbox as that's also against the rules without a good (usually antag related) reason. As I might have missed something in game that had caused that and even if they were already definitely in violation of the rules for naming I should still check to make sure they were acting in bad faith in other aspects instead of just assuming so.
OwiviaToday at 10:28 AM
They respond to your carefully-worded ahelp with "this isn't against the rules, fuck off trial mod, you're ruining my muse"
CFToday at 10:30 AM
At this point I can tell they're not going to be agreeable and tell them that they will receive a warning and kick this time - in the warning will be a link to the rules and it will ask them to only rejoin when they've read and understood them to avoid future warnings.
Then kick them.
With the warning.
(if that's how it works)
OwiviaToday at 10:31 AM
Alright!
CFToday at 10:31 AM

OwiviaToday at 10:31 AM
:ablobpats:
Next scenario.
CFToday at 10:33 AM
:fox: :thumbsup:
OwiviaToday at 10:34 AM
It's a voted borer round, and only about a minute in. Someone ahelps and says "Bob McBob, sec officer, is walking around with a voidsuit helmet on." You jump over and, indeed, Bob McBob has a security voidsuit helmet on, and is patrolling the station with it.
CFToday at 10:37 AM
I would Aghost and observe them for a very short while just to make sure they don't quickly change their mind and take it off. If they didn't then I'd PM them asking if there was an in-character reason they were wearing a helmet, and remind them that their character wouldn't have any knowledge of the borers or their presence - therefore taking steps against it without in-character reasons is metagaming and against the rules.
OwiviaToday at 10:38 AM
They respond "Yeah, last round someone hit me over the head and now I wear a helmet to protect myself from the threat of injury."
CFToday at 10:41 AM
I reply that its not reasonable behaviour for someone to walk around in a voidsuit helmet at work to protect themself from the threat of head injuries. As a sec officer they have procedures on when its appropriate to wear their armour based on the alert level - and have security helmets for this reason. I ask them to make sure they're aware of the procedures, linking them the wiki page and asking them to stop wearing the voidsuit helmet.
OwiviaToday at 10:42 AM
They respond "But I really think my character should wear it. It fits in rp and it's not hurting anyone. I didn't even know it was borer."
CFToday at 10:49 AM
I explain to them that its not appropriate for a security officer, not only because security has strict uniform regulations, but also that the helmet they're given is more appropriate for protecting themselves. While a paranoid officer might flout some procedures, they wouldn't do so in such an obvious way when the wearing of a helmet is more appropriate to the motivation they've given.
OwiviaToday at 10:49 AM
Do you check their notes?
CFToday at 10:50 AM
Yes, sorry.
I should've done that first.
Probably when observing them.
OwiviaToday at 10:51 AM
No worries!
When you check their notes, you can see that they have a pretty extensive history of powergaming as an officer. Lethals at roundstart, vest and helmet all round, sweeping maintenance at the beginnings of rounds, and the like.
CFToday at 10:53 AM
Have they received any punishments?
OwiviaToday at 10:54 AM
A few warnings and notes.
CFToday at 10:55 AM
Can moderators apply role-bans?
OwiviaToday at 10:55 AM
Yes, they can.
CFToday at 10:57 AM
I don't know what the appropriate punishment would be but a server ban seems extreme if they've only shown to have an issue with powergaming as an officer - so I'd probably tell them they've had several warnings over similar actions in the past and as such I'll be giving them a role-ban for security positions. While they're welcome to play other roles on the station they should keep in mind that further powergaming will likely result in more severe punishments.
also if its necessary, let them know they can appeal the ban on the forums
OwiviaToday at 10:58 AM
How long would the role ban be?
CFToday at 10:59 AM
If they haven't been banned before, a week.
but if I wasn't sure
I'd ask a more senior staff member
or more experienced mod
just to be sure
OwiviaToday at 11:00 AM
Alright!
CFToday at 11:00 AM

OwiviaToday at 11:00 AM
Next scenario.
CFToday at 11:00 AM
:thumbsup:
OwiviaToday at 11:12 AM
Okay! So it's a round of extended, and you get an ahelp saying "The roboticist just killed Stinky Joe. Not sure why." What do you do?
CFToday at 11:14 AM
I aghost over to look and check the logs to confirm what happened if possible then read the notes for all three players "involved".
OwiviaToday at 11:15 AM
So, the AI is the one who ahelped. 10 day old account, no notes. The roboticist, James McRobot, 70 day old acccount, has a few notes on a bit of powergamey behaviour. Stinky Joe is a three day old account with no notes.
VV tells you that Stinky Joe punched the roboticist, and a fight broke out with kicking and punching. The roboticist finished things off by stabbing Stinky Joe with a switchblade, 15 times.
CFToday at 11:17 AM
I try and find out how it started by contacting the roboticist and Stinky Joe and asking them both what caused the fight - unless the server logs can tell me from their messages/emotes sent.
OwiviaToday at 11:18 AM
They cannot tell you messages/emotes sadly.
The roboticist tells you "Joe walked in, demanding ED-209s from me, and I told him I wasn't going to make him. He waited around until I opened the door and then he punched me for no reason so I defended myself."
Stinky Joe tells you "The roboticst wouldn't do their job and they kept talking shit so when they came out I punched them and then they killed me for no reason with a fucking knife"
CFToday at 11:22 AM
Difficult one, while there was some escalation, its excessive, there's also inconsistency between the two statements - however the roboticist also has notes for powergaming and had a knife on them, which they shouldn't have. So I'd ask the roboticist why their character had a knife on them just to learn more for now.
OwiviaToday at 11:23 AM
They respond to you "I have a knife because I start the round with plasteel and I made it just in case"
CFToday at 11:25 AM
I'd ask them both to explain why their characters felt the need to respond as they did, first with the punch and then with lethal force against a coworker for a single punch
OwiviaToday at 11:27 AM
The roboticist says "I work with lethal robots and he was trying to get into my lab. I was defending station property aswell as myself, he was hitting my head, he was trying to kill me."
Stinky Joe says "I was punching him because he was saying he was able to insult me and nothing would happen, and being a real prick. I only hit him once before he started hitting back and then we were fighting."
CFToday at 11:29 AM
Was any attempt made to contact security?
by either of them
OwiviaToday at 11:31 AM
Nope.
CFToday at 11:36 AM
The roboticist receives a warning for reacting excessively (killing with a contraband weapon) without contacting security. They both receive notes and an explanation of the need to escalate properly and act realistically, advise they both read the section on "antagonists and conflict" within the rules stating that killing in self defense is NOT preferred. Unless they both agree otherwise, the death is canon and the roboticist should roleplay out the effects of the murder on their character.
OwiviaToday at 11:36 AM
OK!
CFToday at 11:37 AM
That one was very hard, its difficult when there's no evidence supporting either side - I'd also try and contact the AI player beforehand
because they might have more information if they had a hologram in the room
as to what was said
but trying to be impartial I'd stick with that punishment
It's a bad outcome all round.
OwiviaToday at 11:38 AM
It's alright! And had you contacted them, they wouldn't have had any more information for you.
Next scenario!
It's a traitor round, and you get an ahelp from an officer. It says "This fucking changeling just killed me for NO REASON"
CFToday at 11:41 AM
Check notes, logs and then ask both parties what happened.
OwiviaToday at 11:45 AM
There's no relevant notes on either party. Now that you've jumped over there, presumably, you see the ling, standing over the officer's dead body, and another corpse, with all the DNA sucked out of it. Logs show the ling doing it's ling thing™️ on the corpse, and then hitting the officer with an armblade. Officer gets off a couple shots from his pistol and then the ling kills him with armblade and then succs DNA
CFToday at 11:47 AM
In this case I think its pretty cut and dry, the officer tried to attack first with the intent of (presumably) killing the horrible monster in front of them, the monster then killed them in return to acquire more DNA.
It seems a reasonable outcome for the action that's in line with what a Changeling does.
So I explain that the reason it killed them was to stop them from killing it and to acquire the officer's DNA - which is the changeling's objective.
OwiviaToday at 11:49 AM
The officer responds "That's not okay, it didn't even say anything to me and I didn't even do anything. This is bullshit."\
CFToday at 11:49 AM
they might have just reacted angrily to being beaten in combat
I ask them if they tried to say anything first before firing, because the logs indicate that they shot at the changeling first.
OwiviaToday at 11:53 AM
They say "I told them to stop and they didn't even listen to me, just tried to fucking kill me. And they aren't even winded, you have to DO SOMETHING."
CFToday at 11:54 AM
Have I seen any evidence of escalation prior to this?
OwiviaToday at 11:54 AM
Nope.
CFToday at 11:56 AM
Has the ling responded?
OwiviaToday at 11:57 AM
The ling says "The officer just walked in on me, and so I killed him so he couldn't tell everyone where and who I was. I haven't been discovered yet."
CFToday at 11:58 AM
Unfortunately this seems like a situation where the 2nd officer basically arrived and caused the turning point - the escalation and roleplay might have been there for the 1st officer (to ensure they weren't discovered) and unfortunately the 2nd caught them "in the act" as it were which caused a quick response from both sides and neither side ran away.
I don't think anyone was in the wrong here, while RPing every conflict is preferable there are times when its less applicable
or rather
that its more appropriate to respond in a panicked way
fight or flight
such as when an officer is pointing/shooting a gun at you and you're trying to stay hidden
OwiviaToday at 12:00 PM
Alright! That sounds great. Do you have any questions at all before we move on to the next part, the questions?
CFToday at 12:00 PM
Only is it alright if we have a few minutes break?
I need more water :laughing:
OwiviaToday at 12:00 PM
Yep! Sure!
CFToday at 12:00 PM
ty
Back!
OwiviaToday at 12:04 PM
Welcome back!
Ready to move on?
CFToday at 12:06 PM
Yep!
OwiviaToday at 12:06 PM
Do you ever think that it is acceptable for a non-antagonist to murder another non-antagonist? Why or why not?
CFToday at 12:12 PM
I think that it can be acceptable in very specific circumstances. There must be a very good reason for it based on roleplay, developed through time on the server, with realistic escalation or progression. For example if between two characters, Mr.A and Mr.B, that Mr.A was irritating Mr.B purposefully, shift after shift and Mr.B had at one point lashed out and been reprimanded but whenever they try and bring it up ICly it doesn't go anywhere. Mr.B then tries to get some medication from the pharmacy to deal with stress but one day they don't have it, there's no pharmacist - and Mr.A once again walks up behind Mr.B and throws a paper airplane at his head. After months of abuse, Mr.B goes postal and throws his coworker into disposals like the trash that he is. Mr.B then continues his work until security arrive having found his prints all over Mr.A. Mr.B is sentenced and then plays his character through as having been demoted to assistant, and has to attend regular meetings until they can reclaim their post.
So murder can be acceptable, its just arguably requires the MOST demanding set of RP circumstances for it to happen - and not something that should quickly happen on a round because someone punched you one time.
It should be a story for both parties and realistic.
OwiviaToday at 12:14 PM
Our rules often refer to keeping characters 'believable'. Do you feel there is a difference between a realistic, and a believable character? If so, what is it?
CFToday at 12:18 PM
Realistic in a sense can be a bit too distant when the setting is sci fi and some of the concepts are peculiar or unique. I think believable is a more useful term because it also covers a respect of the lore and behaviour as well as general things like character history. They're parallels in a way. I think I prefer the use of believable over realistic if I had to choose as its more important to the concept of immersion and facilitating good roleplay.
OwiviaToday at 12:19 PM
If you could change any one thing about the server, what would it be?
CFToday at 12:22 PM
I would make AI require a whitelist - I think that you should have to hold a command whitelist to play as an AI due to the influence they can have on a round. The AI role could then be enhanced with more responsibilities as the standards and requirements for playing it would be raised as a result (poor AI play being the reason for a lot of the reduction to AI's capabilities).
I also think this would be a very good change in advance of the NBT, as a Bridge AI would be thematic and helpful aboard a vessel.
OwiviaToday at 12:24 PM
How do you feel you work in a team?
CFToday at 12:26 PM
I feel I work well in a team, I like to ensure that everyone involved has an opportunity to express their opinions on whatever the responsibilities of that team are. Some people seem to think that being a "strong" team member involves shouting the loudest or longest - or having the most conviction of their beliefs, but its actually the opposite. Good teamwork involves communication and communication goes both ways.
OwiviaToday at 12:28 PM
Okay! Lastly, from what you've seen, how do you feel the staff team operates, and would you change anything?
CFToday at 12:29 PM
From what I've seen the staff team seems to operate well, or at least gives the appearance of a well operating team to non-staff. I don't have enough knowledge of how the staff team operates to make any suggestions for change really, but it's definitely something I'll keep in mind when I find out more.
OwiviaToday at 12:30 PM
Alright! And, do you mind if I post this interview?
CFToday at 12:30 PM
Not at all :sweat_smile: