[20:04:40] Alright [20:05:23] Well I think we'll be good to start [20:05:32] Anybody want to post the like [20:05:32] Points for today [20:05:58] I've got a list in my back pocket don't think I ever put it in the thread tho [20:06:33] Yea no I didnt [20:06:36] Whoops [20:07:06] what's first thing @ThatOneGuy [20:07:25] State of Server & Direction [20:08:34] If nothing else is needed, we'll go ahead and start there [20:08:45] ?? [20:10:24] Alright so I think we can all agree that the server direction that we currently have is not the most...popular thing to our community, as demonstrated by the 100000 polls lately [20:10:35] The polls have become memes of themselves [20:10:40] I'm not sure which are serious anymore [20:10:43] Yea [20:10:51] But the original and month old polls prove the point [20:10:54] It's clear that people *do* want change in role availability [20:10:59] That can't be ignored [20:11:11] Indeed [20:11:14] Half the server wants every role but CO open to everyone, other half definitely doesn't [20:11:16] And that they want it changed to be less military vs more [20:11:16] we really should do some of those in-game polls we've never actually used btw [20:11:18] I'd also objectively say that a majority do not like the torch as a setting [20:11:21] So a good middle ground solution can be found I think [20:11:25] Opening medical for instance [20:11:33] And engineering [20:11:35] The torch map is cool but the setting they don't like [20:11:39] Maybe not head slots [20:11:44] I have to say, I agree with @ParadoxSpace on trying in-game polls to see if they are substantively different than the same polls on forum [20:11:53] I agree with that to [20:11:55] @Crushtoe Those are half measures that don't solve the root of the problem being the military setting [20:11:58] Unless you open all departments to a certain degree, there will always be a group that will complain "But why wasn't [X] opened?" [20:12:00] Do we really need more polls at this point? [20:12:14] well forum polls aren't reflective of the userbase that actually plays the game like every day [20:12:25] ^ so many active forum people who don't actually play, but heavily opinionated [20:12:27] I'm so damn tired of polls [20:12:27] But [20:12:31] speaking of which, a later topic is about that [20:12:37] I'd feel that the middle ground point is to reach more agreeance as [20:12:40] a last in-game polling thing would be beneficial, i dunno who can set those up [20:12:42] I brought up the fact that the built in polling feature is never used forever ago [20:12:42] probably xales [20:12:42] "Yeah at least I got change" [20:12:48] I do think there is a problem with it [20:12:50] Versus absolutely nothing [20:12:53] I can set those up, not sure if the code for them _works_ but I can create them [20:13:00] Piss off as few people as possible by opening up non-head roles [20:13:07] @xales Ask around tg [20:13:07] I think removing "contractor slots" and having slots like there are in research except both mil and non mil can have them would be a good thing to do. [20:13:13] *** Joins: chinsky (Chinsky@monkey.vault) [20:13:14] Have all groups have the same slots. [20:13:25] tg's version of it is changed now from ours [20:13:33] I might just rewrite it, since it's a trivial system to implement [20:13:35] I would say just open up non-head slots [20:13:44] You risk the people who are in the mil trying to force it onto people who are notmil [20:13:48] ... At least point I'm not certain that military roleplay is the best for our community. It's very heavily divided our playerbase, which in itself is a bad thing. [20:13:49] I seriously think changing role availability is gonna do nothing. The polls from months ago prove that the entire military setting is the problem, not some random roles. [20:13:50] And addressing those things [20:13:57] That isn't a huge concern to me [20:14:04] I do have to agree there [20:14:07] This is more of a bandaid thing before Raptor has his thing [20:14:11] Or someone else does a thing with setting [20:14:13] Contractors don't get fucked with usually [20:14:15] I'd like to point out that we risk dividing the community *again* if it looks like we're alienating MilRP players, Virgie. [20:14:17] Having the ship completely mixed is gonna be [20:14:26] Ugly SOPwise [20:14:26] I personally think that a setting where it's not all-military but that allows the people who are really into the military stuff to still play it a bit, would be ideal. [20:14:29] And yeah, mixing the ship will be a clusterfuck. [20:14:31] Based on what I see people saying about it. [20:14:37] In other words, a PMC, xales. [20:14:41] @BlueNexus Our choice is to keep the playerbase divided, or unify it with a consistent setting. [20:14:43] Eh, maybe? [20:14:46] "Oh man do I listen to them or not in military they're not" [20:14:49] There's harm either way. [20:14:56] I liked the core of Eckles's cargo ship setting and I've got a way to work a military section into it for milRP. [20:15:05] We had a majority vote for a setting that was thought up already - independent. We don't need to do bandages and wait for Raptor. Especially when raptor caused this mess in the first place (No offense to him, it was a lot of work ) [20:15:16] Authority should be fully governed by their job, not military rank. This aspect should be removed and ranks kept only as a kind of fluff thing [20:15:19] A PMC gives us the best of both worlds. It's not super strict, but they still have a reason to act military. [20:15:23] Define PMC [20:15:25] SOM thing is you kinda have to eait [20:15:27] Wait [20:15:29] Private Military Company [20:15:32] Mercs, basically. [20:15:32] eww [20:15:37] that's still military [20:15:38] The torch in its current state is not ready for independent [20:15:41] Yes Steve [20:15:42] Thats [20:15:44] ... Aren't ranks essentially fluff anyway at this point? [20:15:45] That's the point [20:15:48] Except on very low pop [20:15:48] Yeah, but it's nowhere near as formal. [20:15:49] PMC is worse than military. [20:15:51] I would say having like, a civilian setting where you can play as members of a PMC who work with the civilians might work [20:15:53] The idea is people don't want military. [20:15:54] but not a PMC being the whole damn thing [20:15:58] Yes I like that idea @xales [20:16:07] We could go the Eris route, and have a PMC provide security. [20:16:08] Yes exactly [20:16:09] Pmc sounds worse honestly [20:16:09] avoids formal rank problem too [20:16:12] PMCs may have ranks but they are [20:16:14] a load of shit [20:16:16] and everyone knows it [20:16:22] except for the cowboys who need to use it to get stuff done [20:16:26] here, reality matches how people roleplay [20:16:27] Military is better than PMC by far [20:16:27] :) [20:16:28] I think there should be a difference throughthe crew tyho [20:16:28] PMC Security and civilian everyone else @BlueNexus? [20:16:29] Independent would be better. And the, that allows for a PMC as sec [20:16:31] I'd be willing to make setting a project for me. Nabbers are in a good place and it'd be nice to work on. [20:16:33] Yes, @Virgie [20:16:35] I was referring to the SOP discussion, @Virgie. If we completely take ranks out of the loop, and only use jobs it will simplify it quite well [20:16:39] Maybe just 2-3 ranks though [20:16:39] That's what I'm suggesting. [20:16:51] Independently-owned vessel, who've hired a PMC to provide security. [20:16:53] The problem iwth that is that you then force everyone who wnats military ot crowd security [20:16:55] I'll honestly go with anything that doesn't keep our community split. [20:17:04] Steve already gonna talk about the setting in a lil I have a thing [20:17:11] But I like the PMC sec, civilian crew deal [20:17:13] That sounds nice [20:17:17] Steve I'd work with you on doing that btw [20:17:20] @Virgie That will stil lcause problems tbh [20:17:21] I need to get away from this mysql stuff [20:17:31] People will be pissed that they have to go sec for mil [20:17:38] And PMCs are a load of shit. [20:17:38] I also have done well with projects in the past. [20:17:43] Security should just stay cops [20:17:50] We could just go back to what we had before. [20:17:55] Corporate vessel of some kind. [20:18:00] "but my milrp" [20:18:01] And switch it up [20:18:01] Otherwise things aren't really gonna chang [20:18:02] I don't want to just shove the other group into a corner [20:18:15] And instead of the "civ" group bein "marginalized" [20:18:16] PMCs are a hornets nest [20:18:19] Look, no matter what we do, someone's going to be unhappy. [20:18:21] kun peng when [20:18:23] It'll be the MilRP aide [20:18:25] Side [20:18:27] Aye, we can't please everyone. [20:18:27] And I really think keeping the playerbase as divided as it is [20:18:30] Is a very, very bad thing [20:18:33] No we can not [20:18:34] It's already causing problems. [20:18:38] @ThatOneGuy yes but lots of people want the setting to change a lot and also want less milRP [20:18:38] Those who know me well know that i'm one of the few people that remained supportive of exodus, so i like the idea of going back to corporate setting. Possibly not NT, something smaller could be more interesting and fresh [20:18:39] I'd say the civilian + optional PMC makes the least people pissed: only people who want to play non-sec military [20:18:39] Being supportive of the less. [20:18:49] Steve I know I'm not disagreeing with this [20:19:01] Atlantis, corporate wise, have it be exploratory based, not research. [20:19:01] What I'm saying is that flipping the table is still going to have server divide [20:19:08] Have NT on-board still maybe? [20:19:08] I mean on-board ftl. [20:19:09] We already have server divide [20:19:16] It iwll be exactly the same with a different side pissed if you flip it [20:19:19] Note that it's still 50/50 divide Steve [20:19:24] Have it be a collaborative corporate effort, iunno. [20:19:26] I was thinking independent vessel [20:19:31] Massive swings just piss shit off [20:19:31] Rather than corp [20:19:35] Those are the small lore nuances that could be done if this is actually the way the server will go. [20:19:37] Exploratory [20:19:38] Ofc [20:19:48] Can we get compeltely independent with CM police or sometihng [20:19:48] not really 50/50 [20:19:48] https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/274952400358473728/386597338677903373/unknown.png [20:19:52] PMC brought on to help with security and filling out positions [20:20:01] Steve again not everyone on the forums still plays [20:20:09] And not everyone who plays goes on the forums [20:20:29] There are so many people that are on the forums just to shit on milrp tbh [20:20:30] It gives us an idea of what to do [20:20:43] Speaking personally, I would play more if the setting weren't as military. It's been a while since I've played and I don't have the time to spare to re-learn the current iteration of military stuff, as well as enforcing it as an admin. [20:20:45] But we shouldn't follow polls blindly [20:20:50] Not everyone who goes on the forums plays. If people don't visit the forum, they opt out of the possibility to influence changes like this [20:21:21] Ultimately this is going to be a problem with any kind of voting system, perhaps except for in-game integrated votes. [20:21:36] @ThatOneGuy Can we make independet vessel that pays Colonial amrshals to be sec? Then its not really military, but police get to be actual cops and have structure and such [20:21:37] Whatever it is, the thing I feel is the most popular is the bit about command actualy having power, so whatever it is, it can't be the 'insert-corp-here hires anyone' thing, and not letting people forget that those people are actually their bosses [20:21:48] Gracie I'm not against that [20:21:49] In-game integrated votes would at least give us more of an idea of what the active playerbase thinks [20:21:52] Maybe do a mixture [20:22:04] ^ I want to do both [20:22:06] 'milrp' or not, my biggest issue with going back to corporate slurry is that torch switch created some sort of theme, an identity, it's kinda messy right now because several branches, but I think tossing it all out to go back to full generic would be a shame. [20:22:09] forum poll and in-game poll for this stuff [20:22:09] At the same time though, you have to consider that it's not exactly reasonable to make a choice based on the voice of the forum when you consider that, as you say, the intersection of people who play and people who forum is not the whole set of people who play, and also includes people who do not [20:22:09] play. [20:22:11] I honestly think thats the best way to do it. [20:22:14] so we can evaluate if they are any different [20:22:15] Yes I feel that making sure command still has power is the most important, and that it shouldn't be military ranks that give the power. [20:22:27] I don't want to go all generic chinsky [20:22:27] It's a hairy problem. [20:22:29] It gets rid of the whole milrp vs non milrp [20:22:33] and keeps a whole new setting [20:22:42] Possibly interesting idea would be to have an unified voting framework, that would both combine in-game votes and votes through the forum/web interface. [20:22:55] Atlantis, eh, becomes pretty easy to game it then [20:22:58] Plus it still puts SolGov in and mixes with independent exploratory stuff [20:23:01] Yep [20:23:08] It's easy to game it either way though tbh xales [20:23:08] Those comfortable with voting from game would be able to vote from game, those who prefer forums would be able to use forums. [20:23:20] Exploratory stuff is part of the setting and that mission won't nessesarily be kept [20:23:20] I'm just going to step out because this is a mad flurry of ideas with no structure [20:23:22] And people that want to play a sol gov government side still have that with the CMs [20:23:27] Someone ping me when this topic is over [20:23:33] Yea got you Crush [20:23:52] @spooky sure, but at least in-game it's a bit easier for us to deal with abuse; ckeys aren't in infinite supply, we can require some ckey age to vote, and Luca is designed to prevent using VPNs and shit, forum has no such protections [20:23:52] Steve. Why should we drop exploration stuff? That'd be silly [20:23:53] Anyway there's no good solution for getting feedback because the people who are happy with the current state of things are the ones who are least likely to voice an opinion. [20:24:05] But Crush does have a point we have a lot of convos going on right now [20:24:12] So you'll always have a skew, regardless of which way it goes. [20:24:24] @spooky one option: must vote to join round, vote options are yes and no ?? [20:24:26] I have an idea. Can wej ust..go one by one and give our ideas and let others ocmment on them instead of a mad flurry of ideas? [20:24:28] The problems of polling is not something we'll be able to find a solution to here [20:24:32] Keep the idea of a ship, at least, salvage operations, exploring still, or a mobile station of some sorts, but exploration is popular and we have a lot of content [20:24:36] @spooky (/s) [20:24:38] I agree with Gracie. [20:24:41] Personally i feel this particular topic would also be better handled through the staff forum, at least until more narrow consensus is made. Poke me as well when we get to the next topic, thanks. [20:24:47] Too many ideas coming out at once time isn't helping. [20:24:51] Agreed [20:24:58] yeah, I think this might be better on the forum so people can write out full ideas [20:25:10] Bring back the talking stick *nod* [20:25:13] ok we can move to the forum [20:25:30] Meeting isn't designed for this kind of thing [20:25:32] I'll mark it down [20:25:33] Honestly? What also doesn't help is we as a team have no idea as to what we all really want. [20:25:41] Doesn't help at all [20:25:44] Make it PSF so people can see we're trying [20:25:46] @Gracie I like the idea of colonial marshals as police, though allowing administrative sec roles to be civilian so it's not sec-only-military in the other direction, is good; are you ok with writing up a post on it? [20:26:05] Marshals aren't military [20:26:14] They arent military, they arel ike..federal police or osmething? [20:26:15] we could make them be [20:26:15] They're wild space police [20:26:17] �\_(?)_/� [20:26:25] military-esque, anyhow [20:26:31] have uniform, have rank, have guns [20:26:35] Could be yeah but simplified [20:26:36] ticks all the boxes for most people I'd think [20:26:36] ok let's move on guys [20:26:42] Yes we are [20:26:44] forum is better [20:26:51] Anyways glad we all have ideas [20:26:54] Itd be sometihng like patrolman, sergeant, lieutenant or wahtever [20:27:08] Itsway simpler than mil [20:27:14] Next topic [20:27:14] @Virgie I decided a month back that I don't actually care about the torch arguments anymore because it's a massive split and will continue to be a massive split regardless of what gets done, because no matter what anyone proposes to alleviate the problem a large vocal body will hate that solution [20:27:14] because it doesn't represent *their* change. [20:27:14] @Crushtoe Atlantis moving topics [20:27:32] Spooky has a point but moving on [20:27:42] *nod [20:27:51] We have a few topics about Rules and stuff [20:28:13] Gonna start off with one Virgie made a thread about- **RP Standards** [20:29:14] I know I'm out of the loop currently when it comes to how RP is going in game so I want to see what you guys think about it currently and we should do if it needs improvement [20:29:28] I really like how it was posed in that thread [20:29:32] Simply put, we don't really have one. [20:29:32] [20:29:32] We do need to be careful that, however we do it, we do it in such a way that we aren't encouraging an "admin may i" mentality. We really don't need that, but I do seriously think we need a set of roleplay standards everyone should be reaching as a baseline. [20:29:56] _raises "enforce characters sticking to their primary jobs, and enforce job skills boundaries" flag and waves it hopelessly._ [20:30:00] I didn't see the thread s- [20:30:02] Pls no [20:30:10] Actually you know what [20:30:16] Fuck it I'm in favor of it spooky [20:30:18] yes please [20:30:18] _Xeroxes @spooky's flag_ [20:30:31] At least it I support it I can help push it in a direction that I'm satisfied with [20:30:35] Spooky flag indeed [20:30:36] Today I had to talk to [REDACTED] about being really really silly as a Tajara, they asked me 'Would I get bwoinked if I was doing this as a human'? To which I said that I expected more reasonable play out of them, but it's true, they would not of gotten bwoinked as a human. [20:30:48] I also like the idea of skills or job knowledge thing as outlined in the thread [20:31:00] It's not actually reasonably doable unless the character system is redesigned anyway, so shrug [20:31:02] We hold people with whitelists responsible as they're meant to be able to act as [20:31:06] Good roleplayers [20:31:17] This will be an unpopular opinion I feel [20:31:21] Humans are the trash receptacle [20:31:24] Best you can do is "You're an X, Y is not in your job skillset, stop that." [20:31:28] Which we already do to a point [20:31:40] @spooky I'm touching a lot of character creation code as part of this db thing [20:31:51] 'but I am actuallly a doctor, I just work cargo on wednesdays' [20:31:51] @Virgie I am feeling that my my Fear/Pain thread is relevent again [20:31:53] if you want something relatively not-massive changed, let me know, I'll see how hard it is to do >_> [20:31:57] If we do try our character skill enforcement [20:32:01] If should be playtested first [20:32:11] It's not because it's potentially full of bugs [20:32:13] yes this includes fear and pain [20:32:16] But because people might hate it [20:32:18] ^^^ [20:32:23] And need to get used to it first [20:32:33] chinsky or the ever wonderful "I was a cargo tech but now I'm the captain. I'm not changing who I know or my history, this is just a thing." [20:33:06] idc if people change job slots one round to another [20:33:10] Doesn't bother me whatsoever [20:33:16] I know you will all hate this idea, but I've wanted some sort of permanent-character stuff different than slots (which db thing enables) [20:33:20] You don't suddenly change your job you studied ten years for in order to work in a messy dark warehouse for mediocre pay [20:33:27] so staff can ban specific players, but also, more importantly [20:33:32] approve them for playing really important roles [20:33:35] But I find it odd that as a roleplay server, very few of us seem willing to actually enforce roleplay standards in terms of how characters actually behave and what we expect from players. It was common to do so several years back, but everyone stopped, and now no one really knows at what point [20:33:35] character behavior is bad. [20:33:35] <[SYSTEM]> full message from V?irgie: https://ptpb.pw/ADoBEXW_AR9EH_PxfR4iDixyGqAk [20:33:35] not a whitelist per-se, but... [20:33:39] I dislike that [20:33:46] "ask staff if character makes sense to be captain, get approval, play captain with character in future" [20:33:46] It's what goon does for HoS [20:33:51] By definition a whitelist [20:34:00] I mean, yes but not how it is for species [20:34:09] I love the idea concept-wise, but i fear it would soon be unmanageable due to sheer amount of requests that will be made [20:34:24] @Virgie One definite contributor since torch is going to be "I'm a marine/fleet, I'm used to gunfire" [20:34:25] what happens if theye play a captain without admin approval? ban? [20:34:26] I know it'll be pointless in the end, and at the end of the day people have an anathema for whitelist, but... not practicable anyway, yeah, Atlantis [20:34:32] or are unable to join as one in the first place? [20:34:35] chinsky, mechanical stop [20:34:36] yeah [20:34:38] Which is honestly not an unreasonable statement, because even a range is still gunfire [20:34:42] so a whitelist [20:34:45] But you are right [20:34:46] Torch is at fault for most of these issues. [20:34:54] yes, but not in the way species work, is what I was trying to distance from lol [20:35:03] But it's a whitelist [20:35:08] By the definition of the word [20:35:10] One of them being how every head always has a lethal gun in their hand, and being better-sec [20:35:10] it was more "nuclear option" thing, not something I think would actually be appropriate, fwiw [20:35:12] yes @Crushtoe [20:35:13] Would you prefer graylist [20:35:18] I would prefer fuschialist [20:35:20] I agree spooky. Point is, we actually had characters held to tangible standards. We enforced it. We don't anymore, and it's weird for a roleplay server to not have that base level of "what do we expect from how a character acts" [20:35:20] don't be so [20:35:23] color exclusionary [20:35:32] How about going with "Whitelisted players get priority when multiple players compete for the job slot"? [20:35:39] anywho, going to stop talking so serious stuff can come up :p [20:35:47] mauvelist [20:35:54] Atlantis, maybe, but for that little impact probably not worth the effort to approve them in the first place [20:36:17] `Contribute just 5$ to the server fund and receive PREFERRED PLAYER STATUS, allowing you a higher priority than high for job selections` :^) [20:36:17] That would prevent situations where inexperienced person joins as CO only to fail managing an emergency, but it would allow them to practice it during lowpop when the slots are usually much more free [20:36:17] also the mechanical problem of "dude gets character approved, goes in and just makes a ton of backstory changes" [20:36:19] So- we all are in agreement we need to do something about RP standards and should work it out from the ideas we have? [20:36:35] (kill player neutrality) [20:36:37] ?? [20:36:39] I think what's being discussed was uh [20:36:45] Not quite what I was driving at [20:36:49] Eh [20:36:58] Let Virgie elaborate [20:37:01] Say what he means [20:37:09] Go right ahead budd [20:37:24] Tenative :+1: - i feel something has to be done, but i won't pretend i have a catch-all solution [20:38:26] Agreed. [20:38:31] ye [20:38:32] `Most characters are cardboard cutouts, not many people have reactions outside mechanics-based action responses to things that occur. That's bad, we used to tell people to roleplay actually having emotions and doing things other than the bare minimum.` [20:38:36] Was the general sentiment, I think. [20:38:41] I just did! We should lay out how we expect characters - in this setting, or any other (should we switch) - actually act. And moreover, we shouldn't be lazy about enforcement, as we quite honestly have ended up being (yes we can enforce roleplay standards, we did before, we can do it again dangit). [20:38:41] Right now we require players "act believably". What is that? We haven't got anything solidified that we actually make sure players and staff are held to, and I think we need that, and to do it in a way that doesn't encourage the old age "admin may i" thing. [20:39:14] Agreed. RP quality has already fallen far, let's not let it fall further, and work on improving it. [20:39:16] See spooky's words. [20:39:19] That sounds great to me, but I'm not sure how it'll work out [20:39:20] I could name a good example of characters that don't really fit the torch thematically [20:39:26] So tentative support [20:39:28] I have something I want to say about enforcement, but it's a different topic (but might be next anyway). [20:39:44] ?? @Chronograph [20:40:09] I give full support becasue we have done it before, and it worked before. People got mad when they felt it was not justified but that just happens. [20:40:30] Cynically, I think a part of it is down to the fact that a lot of our traditionally excellent posting players all kind of packed up and left all at once. [20:40:40] Yeeaaahh. [20:40:41] when the milRP moved in, yeah [20:40:44] So there wasn't much left in the community to guide newer people into the same ideology. [20:40:50] Agree entirely there. [20:41:05] I think we need to pick it up and actually build it back up, regardless of cause (Agreed spooks) [20:41:11] The Torch also actively makes it hard to give a blanket expectation becasue of all the branches, making it more of a mess. [20:41:13] I agree as well [20:41:16] Admins can poke, but actually being in an environment where everyone ELSE is doing that is a massive contributor to getting new people to do it too. [20:41:24] I don't really agree with Spook there but [20:41:35] It's a big part of why EC has had a very, very positive response from other players coming back. [20:41:35] Also hard to enforce roleplay when more people are doing bad then good... [20:41:40] He does that all the time by default. [20:41:49] I think to begin with we'll be poking folks a lot [20:41:56] But I'd rather be poking people and helping them improve [20:41:59] Than sitting back and... not. [20:42:18] And I'd very much like to do so with an idea of what **we** as staff expect from players. [20:42:25] Or poking them and being negative too [20:42:26] And ourselves. [20:42:38] Could make more use of SM, too. [20:42:42] "What's that blood doing there?" [20:42:48] �\_(?)_/� [20:42:52] Delete SM, make DN mod+ [20:42:54] That gets really annoying to people [20:43:02] Being micromanaged [20:43:16] It's one thing to gently push [20:43:17] If it's not a push in the right direction it'll turn into a shove from an ahelp. [20:43:18] Yeah uh enforcement of stuff is a bit vague on the RP front. Whether you should leave it IC or poke them OOCLy can be pretty unclear about some things when it comes down to just RP. [20:43:22] Another to micromanage their actions [20:43:22] They are playing a HRP server and not acting realistic, they should expect this [20:43:26] People get annoyed when told to play different than they are playing, generally. [20:43:35] @Chronograph ++++ [20:43:48] Some people also don't know how to play "well" [20:43:53] Not to be that one but...people generally don't like us getting on to them for anything [20:44:01] There are times I deliberately have turned an eye to a speck of blood for the more impactful moment when I walk in on OH MY GOD [20:44:05] Sadly it's something they'll have to deal with. [20:44:06] I mean, if they don't want to be gotten on for anything, play /tg/ fwiw [20:44:10] We're here for a reason. [20:44:12] If an admin suddenly SM'd me going [20:44:14] What's that blood [20:44:16] They'll get prodded for a reason. [20:44:17] Go look at the blood [20:44:20] See the blood? [20:44:23] I'd be annoyed [20:44:23] Well at the end of the day people don't like being bwoinked @ThatOneGuy no matter what. Some people just want to do w/e without anything negative or perceived negativity. [20:44:23] TBH crush [20:44:28] I think we're talking more about [20:44:42] Got to just go "hey you may not like it but you're in the wrong here" [20:44:56]