alright i'm ready when you are
Yonnimer
 —
3:11 PM
Alright, Before anything, would you want a general list and description of perms you'd get as a mod? None of the questions are really built around any of the new perms mods just got, so it'd just the original older perms
Firstact
 —
3:12 PM
I think I'm familiar with the original permissions but please post it anyway
Yonnimer
 —
3:12 PM

- 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.


If you have any questions with these now or during the interview lemme know, should be good to start when you are
Firstact
 —
3:14 PM
sounds good, I'm ready
Yonnimer
 —
3:17 PM
Gonna start with four situational questions then move on to some more personal-ish questions. For these, you don't need to worry about getting it 'right', just what you think would be the most appropriate course of action.

For the first, "During a normal extended round, an ahelp pops up mentioning "Gary Smith is kitted up like a greytider, they got a jumpsuit gasmask and toolbox in hand", Jumping to them you can see it to be true, what'd you do?
Firstact
 —
3:23 PM
If the player isn't doing anything out of the ordinary aside from wearing stereotypical equipment, I would watch for context as to what they might be planning. While doing so, I would ask the player who ahelped if they have seen anything as well. I wouldn't lead the question but I'd be looking for actions such as trying to get into maintenance, hacking things, or stealing as otherwise there could be good reasoning for them to have this equipment within the bounds of roleplay, though the likelihood of them being new or unaware of the roleplay standards here are more likely. Additionally, I would check the offenders account age and notes/warnings for any prior offenses or if this the first time they've been in this situation, as that would affect how I approach them as a staff member.
If they are simply walking around wearing that equipment without much reasoning in-character and no prior notes on the subject, I would message them about our roleplay standards and direct them to the rules guide.
Yonnimer
 —
3:26 PM
In this case, the account is only listed as first joining a few days ago, with only a note for SSDing without cryoing. The person who ahelped says they haven't witnessed them doing anything other than wandering around so far. When bwoinked they don't respond but can be seen still moving around. Anything additional you'd do?
Firstact
 —
3:30 PM
I would be watching them closely in this case due to a lack of response, and try following up as sometimes PMs can be missed. However if there is a complete lack of response and they are ignoring a staff member repeatedly, I feel that would be grounds to wind them to essentially force a response, though I would very much try to be approachable about it even with the potential for this being a throwaway account. I'd have to check if there's a rule on this specifically but if they left during investigation that would typically be a temporary ban from me.
I would of course, tell them to please stop what they are doing and respond, when messaging.
Yonnimer
 —
3:32 PM
They continue to fail to respond even once winded, leaving about a minute after.  I'd assume you would be going with the temp ban then?
Firstact
 —
3:33 PM
Yes I would go with a temporary ban which I believe generated a note automatically, but if it doesn't I'd notate that as well for failing to respond and leaving during a staff investigation, including the reasoning for the ahelp.
Yonnimer
 —
3:34 PM
In someone's notes it'll show the ban message + how long it is, but otherwise I think that's it for the first question unless you have something to add?
Firstact
 —
3:35 PM
If the ahelping player wanted a follow up or we require one, I'd message them, but that seems about it.
Yonnimer
 —
3:36 PM
nodnod, For the second question

During a round while you're alone, someone ahelps with a question regarding a mechanic you're unsure of, lets say the INDRA in this case for the sake of ease, even if you know how to set it up. How would you respond?
Will be just a minute myself, new keyboard got here and I wanna go use that to be in less pain typing the rest of this lol, like 2-3 minutes
Firstact
 —
3:39 PM
I would direct them to the appropriate guide on the wiki and then try to help if follow up was needed. However if there are further questions that neither a guide nor myself can answer, I would suggest they post the question in the appropriate channel on our discord.
no problem
Yonnimer
 —
3:42 PM
Okay this feels nicer to use lol, other one kept having keys stuck lol

In this case, while answering the question they ask a few followup for help with steps specified on the wiki page, would you respond in any special way?
Firstact
 —
3:45 PM
If it's something I'm not familiar with I'd make sure they know this, though I could help troubleshoot while watching. However if it's something sensitive like the INDRA I would gently warn them not to play around unnecessarily as it can have a major impact on the gameplay of others.
Generally though, I do feel asking them to post something in #seriousdiscussion is a good course of action for deeper mechanical questions
Or on the forums, I've never gone there for that purpose so I'm not sure we have a thread for it
Yonnimer
 —
3:48 PM
Alright, I think that'd be enough for the question unless you got something else to add?
Firstact
 —
3:48 PM
That's all
Yonnimer
 —
3:50 PM
For the next:

When first joining the server on a traitor round you get an ahelp from one of the traitors saying that an officer just killchecked them on the ground despite already being down for a few seconds, leading to their death. How'd you go about handling it?
Firstact
 —
3:56 PM
I would jump to the scene in question to look for myself to try and gather context on the situation such as the alert level, other casualties, and general state of roleplay at the moment (if its relaxed, or people are actively fighting) Given that the ahelping player is dead I would ask them to please tell me the events leading up to this, while watching the situation and behavior of the potential offender. Assuming there are no other staff, I would also PM the officers player and ask about why they executed the traitor while disabled and about events leading up to that. Dying in ss13, especially on a roleplay server, is often upseting for the player but there can be valid reasoning within roleplay to do something like this, and my intent would be to gauge what the motivations were here. I would like message players I saw involved or were told are involved later, after questioning the two primary players here.
I'm assuming of course that there would be no other staff involved in this theoretical
Wait I said that already
Yonnimer
 —
4:01 PM
Jumping to it, it look like it only happened a minute prior, you can see medical is treating two officers and had a harness on the traitor, but, they're dead at this point. The traitor who ahelped says that they got caught stealing which eventually escalated to the shootout when two officers tried to arrest them, but after getting downed one officer walked up to them and shot them a few extra times while the other told them to stop. The officer themself answers along the lines of "They started shooting us just because we tried to arrest them, my officer was frustrated they almost killed us so made sure they wouldnt' get back up, shouldn't have shot at us if they didn't want to get shot back".

The other officer there essentially says what they both said, just that the other officer kept shooting them when theirs tried to tell them to stop so they didn't kill the guy. And yeah for these assume you're the only staffmember handling them
Firstact
 —
4:09 PM
To me this seems like it would be at least partially motivated out of character, given the intent to prevent them entirely from getting back up after only one engagement. This does not seem to be a proper escalation of events even if there was a deadly threat involved. I feel a warning for the offending player would be applicable here as the antagonist was not uncontrollable and had not caused significant harm to non-antagonists at this point. I would direct them to the rules specifically about this kind of scenario for an in-depth explanation. I knew we had rules regarding execution but I did just have to look them up to be sure as a note.
I'd also note specifically that even if it were justified by character motivations, this sort of thing doesn't really improve roleplay and it removes another players interactions with the round entirely, which is not the intent of a roleplay server.
Yonnimer
 —
4:13 PM
The officer in question has a note for failing to properly escalate to shooting an antag as an officer from 2 weeks ago, but nothing else is relevant, no bans at least. When speaking to them, they respond with "That's incredibly stupid, They are massive liability if they get back up and continue to shoot us, we don't know what else they'd have on them", any way you'd follow this up?
Firstact
 —
4:13 PM
I was just about to say, I didnt mention  it but of course i'd check for prior notes
Yonnimer
 —
4:14 PM
Oh I slightly misread something as you checking for a note lol, wouldn't change anything I wrote
Firstact
 —
4:14 PM
If it was just a note without an official warning (or verbal only), I would attempt to explain the intent of the rules as I said. If they continue to be disruptive and refuse to acknowledge this, then it may escalate to a temporary ban. But a documented warning would be preferred.
I am aware that I could do both a temp ban with a warning and that may be where this situation would go if they refused to acknowledge a rule break
Yonnimer
 —
4:16 PM
They follow it up saying "I don't agree with this in the slightest, i'd rather hear it from an admin", and yeah it's just a note. In general we only have notes, warnings, temp bans, and bans
+ jobbans and unban notes
Firstact
 —
4:18 PM
In this case I would give them a high severity warning and inform them that they can freely dispute it on the forums as an appeal, but I would tell them that further rule breaks will result in a ban regardless of the administrator as this is repeated behavior
It could also be equally viable to job ban them from security but in my experience that's something I would want more than just my consent on, especially as other staff may have dissenting opinions there
Also on a roleplay server such as this, a job ban often means outright removing someones character which can definitely upset a player even if they are at fault for breaking the rules
Yonnimer
 —
4:22 PM
I should've probably specified, for these questions i'm basing it off of you being a full mod over a trial, the only real difference is being about to perma ban though
Firstact
 —
4:22 PM
My intent would be corrective action instead of outright banning, just to say
Oh can moderators not perma ban?
Yonnimer
 —
4:23 PM
Trials can't, regular mods can
Firstact
 —
4:23 PM
Gotcha, I wasnt assuming I was on trial
Yonnimer
 —
4:23 PM
Regardless I think that's all for the question unless you gomt something to add, just one more situational question like this
Firstact
 —
4:23 PM
nope that was all
Yonnimer
 —
4:30 PM
During a merc round, you're observing the mercs negotiate the release of a hangar tech they have hostage, in the middle of it two miners and hangar techs with guns and hardsuits come and demand their release. After little success, the group begins shooting the mercs. What'd you do while watching it?
Firstact
 —
4:38 PM
As long as there was proper motivation for this action, and roleplay up to it (such as demanding their release) I don't feel as though this is powergaming or poor roleplay. This sort of conflict does potentially help drive believable roleplay as they are attempting to rescue their associate, though this sort of scenario is something to be skeptical about. As long as the group isn't undercutting someone elses roleplay (such as security) to start a fight, I would likely watch to ensure that proper escalation is followed and that they aren't simply looking for an excuse to fight and win against antagonists. If it does seem like they interrupted roleplay just to start a fight however, that may be grounds for a verbal warning and note, unless there is a history of this with any specific player.
I would like to specify that donning hardsuits for the purpose of combat is powergaming though, and this scenario generally does seem like the players engaged with intent to disrupt the antagonists plans and start a fight.
Well the hardsuits and guns aren't an outright rule break, it's just something to consider, sorry if that was confusing.
Yonnimer
 —
4:42 PM
In this case you could've seen that security was negotiating with them over radio before the group moved in. The hardsuits are the regular mining onces miners can buy, while the weapons are a random assortment of guns, assault rifles, laser rifles, stuff like that.
Firstact
 —
4:47 PM
Given the amount of players involved I would want the scenario to continue playing out under my watch, but when applicable I would PM the players of the techs and miners to ask why they attacked the mercs. This would help gauge their general intent as a group which I feel is the best thing to identify here.
Yonnimer
 —
4:49 PM
While waiting, the group does effectively wipe the floor with the mercs, although doesn't seem to kill check them, they eventually get the hostage out and just leave if given enough time. While poking them, each member generally has a similar response of "They were my friend and it sounded like security wasn't going to get them released at this rate", while also pointing towards one of the miners leading the effort and both bringing some guns from a wreckage and ordering a few extras.
Firstact
 —
4:56 PM
This is as expected then and I would discuss with the group that this is improper escalation of events and is considered poor roleplay. Their characters willingly involved themselves in a scenario that could lead to their deaths when little reasoning was given, other courses of action were available, and the characters in question should not have been so motivated to commit murder/possibly die at that moment. For any players without a history of this, I would notate a verbal warning given. For any repeat offenders, I would specifically PM them to discuss that this is inappropriate roleplay and issue an official warning, barring outstanding circumstances.
Yonnimer
 —
4:58 PM
In this case all of them would accept it, most of them don't have any related notes outside of one or two for improperly escalating as an antag, anything else you'd want to add or is that it for the question?
Firstact
 —
4:59 PM
I believe that would be it
Yonnimer
 —
5:01 PM
Alright, just the more personal questions then.

If there was one thing you could change about the staff team, what would it be?
Firstact
 —
5:04 PM
I can't say I've had any issues with the staff team though my interaction with most of them has been very limited the past few years. I feel like our rules have developed to a good point where it's easy to explain and enforce for any player so there's no complaint on the administrative side of things.
Yonnimer
 —
5:09 PM
Alright, for a second one. With matt's recent announcement and poll of the second NBT2, is there anything you want to comment on it with, or any concerns really?
Firstact
 —
5:13 PM
I understand that any plans for major changes to aurora are barely in the drafting phase right now and that's the intent of the poll. However, I will say that while I'll give it a chance, I do not like the potential direction a lot of players are saying they want, and I would likely not stick around should the server make a permanent move to a freelancer setting or something similar. That's going to be quite a while out if it ever did happen though, and I am interested in how the server develops in general, so I can be expected to stay as a staff member in the meantime.
If I am a staff member, obviously