/tg/Station 13

So I was nominated a few times. Endorse/condemn my candidacy here.

If you have any questions or concerns/criticisms of my potential as a headmin feel free to voice them here.

New subforum when since these threads are going to clog general

Also please don't bring erro's goof troupe back into /tg/ with you

paprika wrote:New subforum when since these threads are going to clog general

Also please don't bring erro's goof troupe back into /tg/ with you

None of them want to play anymore and I don't know how I would force them.

By being headmin and banning people they don't like

I know this is pretty below you but my faith in people has plummeted as of late

error's "gouf troope" aren't generally with error anymore.

unless you count me, miggles, maccus and inthepoopoo as the goof patrol then 2 bad we're already here.

Meh I'm not here to start shit I just forsee a sudden return in all those people that defected from /tg/ if an0n3 gets headmin.

Loyalty or death to 90 players no lag.

Do you think using your departments tools to do your job ingame constitutes powergaming?

What is your opinion on the naming policy?

What do you think of the newest admins and trialmins in relation to their admining and behavior?

How do you feel about singulo.io?

UtterNewbie wrote:Do you think using your departments tools to do your job ingame constitutes powergaming?

What is your opinion on the naming policy?

What do you think of the newest admins and trialmins in relation to their admining and behavior?

How do you feel about singulo.io?

1) I'm a bit confused by the nature of this question. I can't imagine an example where a person in a department using their tools to do accomplish their jobs normal goals would constitute powergaming. An engineer using a wrench to secure the PA, a Chemist using beakers to mix substances, a QM delivering stuff around the station via MULE. Do you have a specific example in mind where you believe it WOULD constitute powergaming? Is this question in regards to a recent judgement or policy decision?

2) I think it's senseless and vague. I posted a few times in the policy thread but if I could sum what should be considered an infraction in three points:

a) Naming yourself after some horrible political figure or real world asshole. Adolf Hitler is a prominent example, but I've renamed people named after other shitters like Adam Lanza and the like in the past. It's annoying valid baiting and we're all fucking sick of it.

b) Naming yourself a bunch of compound insult/sexual bullshit. Bigdick Farthuffer. Rape McShitstain. Kitty Diddler. If a 14 year old would read it and giggle, it's probably stupid. Everyone should inherently know better. If you want to have a name that is a play on words you have to try harder than this.

c) Naming yourself after an in-game object, phenomenon, or in a way that might confer either an advantage for yourself, a disadvantage for others, or just cause confusion. Joining the game as an Assistant named "Alien Drone (764)", "Syndicate Agent", "Fluke Ops", "Cult Exterminator", are all bad. But so is joining the game as "Captain" so-and-so. Anything that might cause a case of "Who's on first" or mistaken identity is needlessly complicating things. The golden rule of doing something "as a joke" is that it has to be funny for other people. These are simply frustrating.

3) I haven't seen anything firsthand that I would say is misconduct. I've read some older complaints and things that maybe give me reason to raise an eyebrow but all of it seems to have already been resolved. Until someone screws something up or pushes for a questionable policy they're probably under my radar.

4) I think it's a necessary outlet for anonymous /tg/ discussion we couldn't have as effectively anywhere else. At first I assumed it would be all garbage, and to be truthful there is still a lot of garbage being slung around on there, but there is also a lot of startling discussion had there that we couldn't otherwise have here.

What do you think the headmins' role should be as far as holding admins accountable? Would you be able to actually deadmin or petition to scaredy for admins being deadminned/trialminned if they fuck up too much?

An0n3 wrote:Do you have a specific example in mind

Dragging a securitron (beepsky) as security for patrols every round, specifically the otherwise never used gulag securitron.

Asking to see how differently you think from current headmin.

So far I like your answers.

If elected will you actually stick around? I don't have a problem with you but I also didn't have a problem with Deuryn.

paprika wrote:What do you think the headmins' role should be as far as holding admins accountable? Would you be able to actually deadmin or petition to scaredy for admins being deadminned/trialminned if they fuck up too much?

I think that's a huge part of their job. They watch the watchmen, so to speak.
But to temper that a little, in the past the group was very good at policing itself. A simple mistake is one thing, and I don't think someone deserves to be deadminned for making a bad ban every once in a while, or "Whoops I broke step vars one round" kind of shit.

On the other hand abuses of authority or evidence of bias should be taken deathly seriously. I'm not saying anything like that is currently happening and going overlooked. I'm just saying that is something I would push for deadminning/reduction of powers over.

We don't actually have too many rules that govern our conduct as admins. We have the server rules that we enforce, but in terms of "Never ever do this shit" it's pretty brief. It shouldn't be hard to follow.

bandit wrote:If elected will you actually stick around? I don't have a problem with you but I also didn't have a problem with Deuryn.

If elected I'll stick around, yes. When I was Head of Bans previously I didn't leave until the new three headmins were voted in and given their tasks. I may have a history of coming and going when I please, but never when I was entrusted with a specific responsibility.

Communication of policy has always been a major issue in /tg/station. People have been banned for vague and sometimes completely un-noted changes in policy, simply because no one was informed we were doing things that way. What will you do to help remedy the situation?

Metagaming bans have been quite common lately, whereas before they were a once-in-a-while thing. Why do you think this is? Better detection, or a spike in activity? What do you think can be done to curb metagaming?

Do you believe /tg/station should encourage or even (in some major cases) enforce roleplaying?

Finally, do you believe Asimov should be kept as the default AI laws? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance.

UtterNewbie wrote:

An0n3 wrote:Do you have a specific example in mind

Dragging a securitron (beepsky) as security for patrols every round, specifically the otherwise never used gulag securitron.

Asking to see how differently you think from current headmin.

So far I like your answers.

Hmmmmmmm that's a tricky situation.

If you hear that something is happening somewhere, you can use your PDA to send Beepsky there. If that's not convenient I think grabbing him and dragging him to the scene of a crime in progress would be fair.

Dragging him around ALL THE TIME behind you is a bit powergame-y because Beepsky is a target seeking unstunnable cuff dispenser. He doesn't have a ton of health so I don't think it's particularly game breaking, but it is anti-fun, and really easy to do.

If you put in a little more work, say having a roboticist build you your own securitron buddy to help you with patrols, I would think it would potentially be fair for you to drag that one around...because you put in some effort to get something that powerful vs. just sprinting towards him at round start and claiming him.

I'm not 100% sure, really. I would have to look at securitrons again to see how you might exploit them (eg pushing them towards doors to try to gain access to areas you normally couldn't)

Vekter wrote:Communication of policy has always been a major issue in /tg/station. People have been banned for vague and sometimes completely un-noted changes in policy, simply because no one was informed we were doing things that way. What will you do to help remedy the situation?

Metagaming bans have been quite common lately, whereas before they were a once-in-a-while thing. Why do you think this is? Better detection, or a spike in activity? What do you think can be done to curb metagaming?

Do you believe /tg/station should encourage or even (in some major cases) enforce roleplaying?

Finally, do you believe Asimov should be kept as the default AI laws? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance.

1)
Communication of policy has always been one of our worst aspects. We'll have secret rules, rules that are open to a wide variety of interpretations, or rules that are just worded to death. I think the key to success isn't alerting the players to the new rules and correcting their playstyle, but rather converting the rules we have on the book to better mirror what people who play here generally accept as what they are.

It's a game a lot of people play and come and go. A lot of our rules have traditionally been made up on the spot in worst-case scenarios to patch gaps in our ruleset. That's no way to live. The rules should be a living thing that conform to how the majority of players treat eachother and expect to be treated in return, except in those extreme cases where we just have to pull the rank card and assert that "it just wont work this way". And even then, we should be keen on paying attention to how decisions like that pan out in the long run, and quick to undo them if it turns out we're wrong.

tl;dr it could use some simplification and some open discussion. it will always need those things, we should be re-evaluating them as frequently as our reserves of energy allow us to.

2)
I don't have a good answer for this. Publicly acknowledging when people are caught and reminding people of the near-zero tolerance policy for that stuff is the best I can come up with. The only alternative would be to find some way to actually ALLOW metagaming and metacommunication between players, and that's a much uglier sounding proposition.

3)
No. We've been proud of our balance between Goon and Bay for a long time. We should continue to try to adhere to that mix of both funny goofy times and serious emotional stuff. I would rather spend time trying to think of a way to "enforce fun". Some metric that says "if enough people think it was funny or enjoyed it, too bad they're right and the rules can take a backseat to people enjoying the game"

4)
No. I think Asimov is rife with problems and secret rules or overcomplicated rules to make excuses for a lawset that is inherently flawed as fuck. I think Asimov would roll in his grave if he knew how seriously we took his laws and how we stupidly insist they're infallible. I would much rather we abandon them and adopt a new lawset with the same general idea, but that better spells out how the laws should actually be employed.

Someone with a lot of wit and an ability for concise logic statements could rewrite that. I think there's even a chance the game could benefit from an AI that is "lawless" but must follow server rules like a normal player, or perhaps just ditching the AI altogether and going back to the old-school pre-AI times. That's just a guess and an assumption, and I suspect a lot of people would disagree. I wouldn't push for something like that unless a majority of people were interested to try it out. It's just too big a change to foist on people and say "I know better"

In regards to Asimov, do you think there could be a way to keep the old lawset while better defining what is expected of AI players?

If there was some way of providing the extra rules to the player in the game window so that they knew for sure what was expected of them I would think it's still crappy but a step towards a compromise.

We often criticize the forums by saying shit like "only people who DONT PLAY post there" etc. etc.

If that's the case then the only people who ever look at the wiki are either hunting for recipes or trying to find a rule that gets them out of a ban in FNR. Ignorance of a rule doesn't mean you can break that rule, but you can't deny we do a shitty job of presenting a lot of the rules to players. AI especially.

Thanks, last question: Thoughts on validhunting?

Do you think Heads of Staff positions are generally filled by players too green for the job?

Do you have any plan to increase the numbers of Security Officers?

Choose one out of each pair:

Murderbone is bad - Everything goes

Upload and Secure Tech and EVA (...) should be bolted at roundstart - Bolting powergaming is for faggots who hate fun

Minor to Medium severity crimes should always be dealt IC - Repeatedly breaking the law every round is reason enough to ban

Subverted silicons should not try to find loopholes in One Human type laws - Exploiting loopholes is always acceptable

Assistants should have maintenance access - Assistants should not have maintenance access

Security players should be allowed to kill people who insist on being problematic - BWOINK

Roboticists should be in control of their labs and what they want to do - Roboticists only exist to make cyborgs

Heads of Staff should be allowed to demote their underlings always - Heads of Staff cannot demote without a good reason

Forums should have a board for people to discuss bans and ban requests freely - No "stenography"

Rei - Asuka


Sorry if there is anything you feel you've already answered.

What's your stance on killing Ian?
Should it be punishable IC with perma?
Or even murder?
Since this IS a roleplayiing game, is it okay for someone to be killed for killing a dog or be given a life sentence for it?

What are your thoughts on headmins delegating some of their tasks to other admins?

What are your thoughts on the current Silicon Policy? Should it stay? Be changed? Dropped?

What is your opinion on the proposal to ban antags who murderboner?

1: What is your opinion of how Security is operating at this time, for better or worse.

2: Do you think there is anywhere Security needs to change policy wise, or is the current policy adequate.

3: Finally, in a ideal world how would you want to see Security operate in relation to the crew and antagonists.

Unique Question: You've personally dropped of the admin radar for a while after the old forum fiasco, before making a sudden return. Considering the amount of time you were MIA, and that your opinions on how the game should be moving forward are somewhat unique, are you concerned your ideals of the server are possibly out of date or that your time MIA might impact your administration capabilities?

Scott wrote:Rei - Asuka

anon if you dont answer this correctly im not voting for you

Vekter wrote:Thanks, last question: Thoughts on validhunting?

I don't think anyone likes it outside of a handful of players whose sole purpose for playing the game is to do that.

Scott wrote:Do you think Heads of Staff positions are generally filled by players too green for the job?

No. I think a lot of players lack leadership qualities, though. The ability to manage a group of people, get them to listen to you, trust you, etc.
Not knowing the department well enough is bad, but I think it's just as bad even if you know everything there is to do if you have terrible people skills.

Do you have any plan to increase the numbers of Security Officers?

I don't have any solid plans at the moment, no. I have some ideas and things we could try but nothing as well developed as a plan yet.

Choose one out of each pair:

murderbone is bad (if you're delaying the end of the round to do it, ie recalling the shuttle so you can keep murdering everyone)

upload and secure tech and eva should be bolted at roundstart

repeatedly breaking the law every round is reason enough to ban

exploiting loopholes is always acceptable

assistants should have maintenance access (and so should everyone else)

security players should be allowed to kill people who insist on being problematic (with the captain's permission)

roboticists should be in control of their labs and what they want to do

heads of staff should be alowed to demote their underlings always

forums should have a board for people to discuss bans and ban requests freely

Fragnostic wrote:What's your stance on killing Ian?
Should it be punishable IC with perma?
Or even murder?
Since this IS a roleplayiing game, is it okay for someone to be killed for killing a dog or be given a life sentence for it?

People kill Ian (or other pets) because it provokes a reaction. It's like reading WGW. The only two ways we're going to convince people to stop doing it are to either stop reacting to it or start handing out short bans for it.

mrpain wrote:What are your thoughts on headmins delegating some of their tasks to other admins?

What are your thoughts on the current Silicon Policy? Should it stay? Be changed? Dropped?

What is your opinion on the proposal to ban antags who murderboner?

If the headmin was swamped with other work it would make sense, but only in a short term. If you're a headmin and you've delegated your job to another admin, you should get the boot and the person doing the work should become headmin.

I think current Silicon POLICY is a huge mess, but that's because the Asimov lawset is fucking garbage and we need to change it.

Like I said above if you are delaying the end of the game to run around murdering as many people as you can then you deserve it. If the shuttle gets called and you're just out to kill as many people as you can before it arrives go for it.



I'm RIDICULOUSLY sick right now so I'll answer the other questions I missed when I have the strength to. I've been vomiting and experiencing chills nonstop for the last two days and I have no idea why. Thanks for your patience.

You've got my vote. Especially because you agree that Asuka > neckbeard's wet dream Rei

Asuka is cuck's wet dream

How exactly would you define "anti-fun"? The last context I've seen that term in was not really favourable for it.

Who would make a better admin? Hilter, Stalin, Obama. Why?

Should admins be able to ERP?

>comparing the 2 worst people in history to the Führer
stay edgy

-DELETE-

OKay so I'm mostly finished vomiting out of my butt and I can answer some more questions. Holy fucking shit though, food poisoning is the worst. This case lasted me some four days or so and I wouldn't wish that kind of suffering on anyone.

Steelpoint wrote:1: What is your opinion of how Security is operating at this time, for better or worse.

2: Do you think there is anywhere Security needs to change policy wise, or is the current policy adequate.

3: Finally, in a ideal world how would you want to see Security operate in relation to the crew and antagonists.

Unique Question: You've personally dropped of the admin radar for a while after the old forum fiasco, before making a sudden return. Considering the amount of time you were MIA, and that your opinions on how the game should be moving forward are somewhat unique, are you concerned your ideals of the server are possibly out of date or that your time MIA might impact your administration capabilities?

1) I think security is understaffed and inefficient. Pre-Jane Luc Price we had a lot of good HoS'es who new how to be tough on crime and lead the group around without being pure shit. Post-Jane Luc Price we've had a lot more admin attention being spent on policing sec. I think what we need more is some of our better players running around playing sec to show others that sec can be done well and can be fun to play, at the same time that we need admins to stop fucking around with sec based on claims like "he gave me more minutes that I deserve" or "he hit me with his baton while he was arresting me". People are really just afraid of the responsibility, and even when our population numbers force a bunch of people into sec positions I still see sec officers milling about not responding to cries for help and such because they don't know what the fuck they're doing.

2) Sec policy is fine for the most part, I think sec and heads shouldn't be able to be traitors for balancing. A lot of the problem IMO is on the administration side of things, responding to what are honestly just bullshit adminhelps from people. If a chef ran down the hall and stabbed you in the chest as he flew by every player would know it was an IC situation. They might consider hunting him down in revenge, or maybe ignoring it and just getting a little healing, but nobody would adminhelp it. On the flipside if a sec officer ran down the hall and knocked you with a baton as he ran by most folks would immediately start typing up the brutal ordeal they just suffered in an adminpm.

Personally I don't think either player should be doing either thing in those examples, but there's a stupid double-standard we hold sec to and one of the big reasons why I think nobody wants to play it. There needs to be some changes in how we enforce things like what "self-defense" actually constitutes and giving Sec more slack to play with. If a person runs down the chef in the above example to kill him in "self defense" that person should probably wind up serving a lengthy sentence in the brig for it. Because that's all space law has, there is no "Valid" in space law, the only justifiable murder is "self-defense" and authorized executions of criminals the captain says so. And when you have to run after someone, it's not self defense anymore.

One of the weirdest things is getting asked by a player to help clear something up IC, and I think many of us have made the mistake of doing so in the past and we shouldn't ever do that again. "Hey I'm getting permabrigged for murdering the traitor who ran into my church with an esword and tried to kill me, could you tell the HoS to let me go?" type stuff. It's a fuckin' role-playing game man, tough shit. Sometimes you do shit that ends up looking terrible when sec arrives and into the brig you go. Don't hate sec for it, figure out a way to clean shit up next time or maybe just call the fuckin' cops ASAP.

3) Sec should be the role you pick when you want to have a very fast, action-y kind of round. Battling antags and shit is their job. As JUDGE DREDD-tier as it sounds, everyone jumping in to help combat a threat is usually committing a crime by wielding weapons they're not normally permitted to have etc. etc. It drives me a bit crazy to think a lot of the worst greytide shitters would actually make really good Sec officers, because they're robust and they love thumping antags. For whatever fucking reason they like to play as assistant instead, though, and just mug sec officers or break into the brig when they need sec's toys to do their job. In an ideal the only assistants we would have would be those random new players who are walking the station for the first few times and learning how to play here. People who don't want a direct responsibility for a department and like to wander all over the place would be sec officers. People who like to see how much trouble they can cause before they get caught would be permabanned already.

4) I don't think my ideals are out of date because a lot of people were really happy to see me come back and start arguing for the things I've been arguing for. As far as adminhelps go I've stuck to straightforward and technical adminhelps while I continue to pick up the pace. I'm not going to ban someone for breaking a rule that isn't a rule anymore.

Rockdtben wrote:Who would make a better admin? Hilter, Stalin, Obama. Why?

Should admins be able to ERP?

Hitler was an inspirational leader but a poor tactician. He wasn't good at the nitty-gritty of determining policies. He got everyone to agree on one thing and then went from there. He was ultimately kind-of a figurehead.
Obama is trying to chase the fool's errand of making everyone happy. It's like the first thing you learn about human nature growing up, you can't make everyone happy all the time. He also delegates a lot.
Stalin I think would be the best of the three. He got everyone together, made solid policies, crushed his enemies, saw them driven before him, heard the lamentations of their women, etc. etc.

Still a horrible human being but maybe not a bad admin.

Admins should be able to ERP only with other admins to perpetuate the superior admin bloodline master race to rule the cosmos.

>admincest

miggles would need to be headmin then.
i nominate miggles 4 prez

Why do you want to be a headadmin?

Like everyone else I think my point of view is right and I'll steer the game in a better direction, but beyond that my point of view is different enough from others that it tempers opinion and opens up room for more discussion about things. I have a lot of experience as an admin, and experience making big changes to policy.

I don't expect anyone to like me as a person or be my friend in or out of game anymore, but I do have good judgement and leadership skills regardless. There are others who might say a lot of people like them, but not many who can claim the latter.

I've got a question:

If you were not running this election, who would you vote for and why?

I should preface this by saying that there's a difference between being a good admin and being a good leader, but:

Nobody. And that's not to say that if I were not myself, I would be voting for myself exclusively. When I think about all the admins I've worked with that displayed the best leadership qualities and even tempers, lead civil discourse, and managed to be people everyone could at least respect if not look up to they're all gone. They've all been gone a while. I'm not even one of them. I lose my temper, I insult people. My own campaign platform message had to be censored because I somehow lost my ability to keep that under control over the last two years.

I think a lot of people are good admins. They're good to the players and know what they're doing. I'm unsure how they would handle positions of authority and I'm kind of afraid because I've seen horrible people do horrible things with authority, but I've also seen nice people become horrible wrecks when they have all that responsibility and focus on them. I wouldn't vote for anyone because I don't want any hand in enabling someone to experience that tragedy.

Who were they?

I mentioned it on IRC but for the benefit of those following the thread:

Three people that quickly come to mind as folks I believe had it in them to be that kind of leader were Kor Phaeron, Quarxink, and TLE.

i talk to quarx about anymay on steam

If someone was being a shit and going out their way to antagonise a department; be that tabling off security, making a slip trap outside medbay, fucking with the powernet; and someone from that department jammed a screwdriver in their eye sockets and tossed them into space - what would you do?

Venison or Lobster?

Malkevin wrote:If someone was being a shit and going out their way to antagonise a department; be that tabling off security, making a slip trap outside medbay, fucking with the powernet; and someone from that department jammed a screwdriver in their eye sockets and tossed them into space - what would you do?

Venison or Lobster?

1). Laugh, shake my head, tip my fedora, raise my chalice of Surge. (That is, nothing)

2) Gengar is my favorite pokemon. (Venison)

Imagine this scenario: There is a growing consensus among the playerbase that a particular weapon is too strong, the debate on how we should tackle the issue is raging. The coderbus hear you and you get to voice your opinion. What's your advice on the issue ?
- Nerf it by reducing it's damage output.
- Buff something that might be a counter, like the armor/riot armor, etc.
- Other ?

I think security is understaffed and inefficient.

It drives me a bit crazy to think a lot of the worst greytide shitters would actually make really good Sec officers, because they're robust and they love thumping antags. For whatever fucking reason they like to play as assistant instead, though, and just mug sec officers or break into the brig when they need sec's toys to do their job.

I think sec and heads shouldn't be able to be traitors for balancing

Hitler was an inspirational leader

You know how to talk to mens. :3

In MMO's where it's easier to see a relationship between ability/counter-ability or other games where there are just fewer THINGS and factors, I'm a fan of the philosophy that you should only ever "nerf" something by raising the power level of everything else around it.

In more straight-forward games like that, if something is too strong it's the same as saying other things are not strong enough.

In SS13 there are so many other weapons, ways to get them, factors like who has the easiest access to them, it's really hard to balance things. It's kind of a huge goddamn mess, really. There are factors beyond damage like whether something can block or parry projectiles, how many hands it takes to wield, where you can stow it, knockdown proc, duration, etc.

I would like to say in a perfect world we would have a strict tier-list for weapons and they would be balanced within their tier, but I don't think that's the case and so when the issue of a single weapon becoming too powerful is raised, it's just not possible to make all the other weapons stronger to match it. Likewise, buffing an item that is a counter to that weapon also buffs it as a counter to ALL OTHER weapons that it might counter the same way, and so only makes the power gap THAT MUCH WORSE.

For us, the way our weapons and such go, really the only solution that works is to nerf the weapon in question. Which I don't like the philosophy of but it's the best for what we got.

These questions are pointless. We're not electing a developer position here. Headmins have no say in code matters.

He posed it as a "what if" scenario, Ikky.

Kuraudo wrote:The coderbus hear you and you get to voice your opinion. What's your advice on the issue ?

I figured we were just talking hypothetically when I saw that.

Ikarrus wrote:These questions are pointless. We're not electing a developer position here. Headmins have no say in code matters.

Speaking of which...

What's your opinion on the segregation of admins, coders, players?

Would you bring back the players voice, aka the peanut gallery. Would this be the old unrestricted format, or would you have a caveat that people who only jump in to defend their friends, or spout memeisms, or just generally post unconstructive antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic - would have their fnr privs revoked?

What's your honest opinion of how tg station has changed from 2011 to today

How old are you in real life?

El Primero
I think the segregation we have is bizarre. It contradicts itself in places. But it's my opinion and short of hosting my own server there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Talking about that specific issue is guaranteed to piss certain folks off. So I'll leave it at that. It could be worse. It could be a lot better.

El Segundo
I think FNR works great the way it is right now. I like having Singulo for steno. I think this is the best setup we've had. Players voicing their opinions on a ban in the thread is 100% fucking useless. Honestly, I think even another random admin voicing their opinion on a ban in a thread is like 40% fucking useless.

Because it's all opinions. We don't want opinions in FNR. We don't need opinions in FNR. It's a simple process of "If (rules broken) then (punishment to fit crime + criminal)". Any post that is not proving a rule was/wasn't broken or measuring appropriate punishment is fucking useless.

If you want to laugh about it, celebrate it, draw attention to it, do it on Singulo.

La Tercera
It's ups and downs. It's always ups and downs. I think we were all laughing a lot more about all the stupid possibilities of the game and trying harder to create absurd situations, like a competition for creating the best "were you there when X did X?" kind of comedy contest. We don't have moments like that because the game is older, a lot of everything has been done to death already and the average player seems to care more about themselves and their own round than leaving a lasting impression on others for something incredible.

El Cuarto
Tengo treintaiuno años.

Ikarrus wrote:These questions are pointless. We're not electing a developer position here. Headmins have no say in code matters.

he wants to know what his opinion is on certain things. knowing what someone thinks about an issue, regardless of if they can change it, can be a deciding factor for someone's vote. in democracy, you want someone who represents the most similar ideas to your own.

I just want to remind people what it is they are voting for and to keep their expectations realistic. Anon's opinion on code matters is nice and all but is ultimately meaningless in the position we're electing.

It was indeed a "what if" scenario; In the case of a raging debate over a code change, one might think that the headmin being allowed to speak his mind is not a stupid assumption.

You got my vote anyways.