whiterabit

Owen went into a trial moderator position after becoming lead of the CCIA. If I recall, he kept his perms for the duration of his trial to continue managing the CCIA and in case he failed the trial or changed his mind on switching over. I don't recall anyone else ever doubling up.

Talked with mofo and some of the administration, after a re-evaluation we're going to close this IR. Calvin Cherry's player has been spoken to regarding their job hopping and limiting themselves to roles within their skillset. Since then they've limited their character to engineering/robotics, as such they shouldn't be re-entering security without causing trouble with the modmins. Their presence in the security department here makes little sense from an IC perspective with this in mind. If you believe the character's behavior up until this point has been severe enough to warrant it, you may file a Character/Player complaint here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=35

oh no oh yes

Closing this IR as it heavily relies on the circumstances of a non-canon event. If you believe the action reported here to be severe enough to warrant it, you may file a Character/Player Compaint here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=35

Yes, exactly what we need is more gamemodes like Paranoia which lack a narrative entirely in favor of click antag until horizontal.

Refused to let me purchase her rare/exotic scales. 0/10

I'll add that this ban was placed only after repeat offenses when you had already been notified of the action taken against your character. When I initially put out the demotion on the character, you were non-responsive to all of my contact attempts. Unsurprisingly I spotted you on the character in the same roles again, so I had an admin contact you. 2017-06-08 04:36:09 || sircatnip || Informed of this CCIA ruling: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=8133#p78269 - after joining as this character in the HoS slot. Was previously unaware due to not checking the BYOND pager, but expressed no issue with the ruling and went to cryo as soon as he was informed. The action was placed on 06/02/2017 and you were notified on 06/08/2017 as is shown in your notes. The ban was only placed after we found out you were joining restricted roles on the character again in August. The announcement about what action was being taken against your character was also placed in a public location, on the IR thread itsself as well as the Head of Staff restricted CCIA Action thread, which I'm fairly certain catnip should have linked to you when he reached out.

We log everything in the CCIA Records, even stuff as small as a warning. You're thinking of CCIA Actions which show up as as subcategory in the CCIA Records, that's the only thing we restrict to significant action.

Oh no a subordinate fearing repercussion from acting against their boss. What sweet hell is this?

"A vendetta against IPCs" "IC Restrictions stiffle roleplay" An important trait of our lore is the existence of oppression, racism and general inequality which drives conflict. IPCs are rightfully distrusted as they embody the idea of "has technology gone too far?" The skrell were fucking holocausted by synthetics, and almost all Artificial Intelligences in human space are lawed out of fear of a the same happening again. IPCs are some of the very few synthetics allowed to operate without a lawset and it's very hard for anyone to predict what that might lead to. There are already radical sects of the Synthetic Liberation Front and a large portion of our lore development was dedicated to their terrorist activities before the vaurca took center stage. Regardless of the hordes super space liberals who make up the player characters, many people would be uncomfortable working underneath a synthetic. This is why the shell requirement is made for the HoP and HoS, it's a way for synthetics to be eased into these positions with a friendly face. Also, the idea that IC restrictions stiffle roleplay is a joke, heavy RP is defined by restrictions. We enforce occupation qualifications, naming conventions, and yes, we put restrictions which help to establish the lore and reinforce the races' place in the galaxy. Take for example the fact that Human and Skrell are the dominant forces in known space, they're both on good terms, and in human space only they are allowed to captain NanoTrasen Stations. Should we allow all races to hold every role because it's stiffling roleplay to deny everyone's fursona a captain slot? I would argue it makes for much more interesting roleplay to have a character denied something that they strive for than to simply let them have whatever they want. See, it's not a matter of what they're built for. An IPC can be built for leadership, and it should be if it's being placed into a position that requires it. If someone makes a synthetic Research Director, it's expected to be purpose-built for leadership in addition to its departmental expertise, otherwise, it wouldn't be put in charge. But that doesn't mean it can go anywhere and fill any role it wants just because it's qualified. It's still a synthetic, and being a synthetic brings with it certain restrictions.

As some of you may have already noticed, we've decided to merge the CCIA applications into the moderator application board. New applications should be posted as a separate thread using the format below. [center][size=6]CCIA Staff Application[/size][/center] [b][u]Basic Information[/u][/b] [b]Byond key:[/b] [b]Character names:[/b] [b]Age:[/b] [b]Timezone:[/b] [b]What times are you most available?:[/b] [b][u]Experience[/u][/b] [b]How long have you played SS13?:[/b] [b]How long have you played on Aurora?:[/b] [b]How active on the forums, discord and/or server are you?[/b] [b]Have you ever been banned, and if so, how long and why?:[/b] [b]Have you ever volunteered as moderation staff for any other servers, SS13 or otherwise?:[/b] [b]Do you have any other experience that you believe would be relevant to a position in the CCIA?:[/b] [b][u]Personality[/u][/b] [b]Why do you want to join the CCIA?:[/b] [b]What do you think are the most important qualities for a CCIA Agent to possess?:[/b] [b]What do you think the purpose of a CCIA Agent is in an ongoing round?:[/b] [b]What do you think the purpose of a CCIA Agent is outside of the server?:[/b] [b]How do you handle stress?:[/b] [b]How well do you work autonomously?:[/b] [b]Additional Notes:[/b]

Closed at the request of the filer.

I'm a fan.

We have an announcement about vaurca and their need for phoron. I'll make a point of sending it out extra to try and reinforce the vaurca's right to getting phoron when they need it. With that said, making an IR against anyone who's denying a dying vaurca phoron is a good idea. It's considered neglect at the least and attempted murder at the worst.

Yellow gives command the authority to coordinate the departments as is needed to deal with a biohazard. They may authorize security to arm up if it's required, or deny it if not. In the case of bluespace bears, security would need weapons and potentially riot gear. In the case of a virus, it's much less likely they'll be given weapons. Code blue does not nullify the need for an arrest warrant. https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Security_Officer#Alert_Levels

Not surprised this got brought up again, I've actually spoken about this with a couple players already. The loophole has been left there intentionally. I'll just copy over the same thing I told them: It's also important to remember that an Acting Captain shouldn't be promoted during standard operation just for the hell of it. Ideally, Command should remain as equals unless a situation comes up in which they require the executive authority to act responsively. With that said, Command abusing this loophole for anything other than antag shenanigans would be setting themselves up for a shitstorm. Antagged Command, however, have an opportunity to abuse the system to take power and guide the round if they can gather the support. We'll consider possible restrictions on Acting Captain authority, but currently, it's still the same as it always was.

Report closed following the conclusion of the Character Complaint on the same individual. Should the behavior re-appear you are free to file another report.

The CCIA recently had a series of internal discussions regarding a few incredibly vaguely written directives/regulations, as well as some of our issues with the current alert level system. With those discussions concluded, we've decided on a number of changes which will focus primarily on the relationship between Security, Command and the Captain. 1. Captain level decisions made by the Command Staff and the process of promoting an Acting Captain. Our current entries in the station directives regarding Command's ability to make a Captain level decision or promote one of their own to Acting Captain are currently vague and open to interpretation. This was one of the first things we addressed, and our goal was to clarify the voting requirements for both. Under the new writing, in order for Command to make a Captain level decision, they'll need a unanimous vote of support from all active Command. However, anyone in Command is free to abstain from voting without affecting the outcome. Greater specifics can be found in the spoiler, where you can read the full changes to our Station Directive entry for Captain level decisions: In contrast, Command hoping to elect an Acting Captain will not require a unanimous vote in support of their candidate, they'll simply need to obtain a majority. Once again, the full re-write can be found in the spoiler: 2. The addition of Code Yellow There's been a longstanding tradition of elevating to code blue whenever there's a biohazard threat. Be it carp, spiders, bears, drones, or a blob, there will most often be an elevation to code blue in order to allow security to display weapons. This, however, both represented a disconnect from the actual intent of the alert level and allowed the security team privileges that weren't needed. The confirmation of any of the above would qualify for a code red elevation, however, elevating to code red requires significantly more effort and brings with it the baggage of security detainment without a warrant, random searches, and other crew restrictions. As an alternative, we've opted to coordinate with the coders to have a Code Yellow implemented which will allow Command and any relevant departments the required flexibility to deal with any biohazard threats, without sacrificing privacy rights or giving the Security Department the means to arrest/search crew without a warrant. This code will not be restricted to security-based issues, rather it should be used for any biohazard outbreak, be it those listed above, a viral outbreak, weeds, or any other obstacles which may be added in the future. Code Yellow in its current iteration is written as follows: 3. Security authority under code blue. Due to conflicting interpretations of the current system, we've decided to clarify the Security/Command relationship under code blue. Firstly, Command Staff will have the authority to shut down any locational search of an area under their authority. In short, any Head of Staff may decline an officer entry to their own department, the bridge, vault or any other shared command-restricted location, even under code blue. It will be the responsibility of the Security Department to provide a probable cause for the intended search, and it will be the responsibility of the Command Staff to exercise restraint when using this authority. Heads of Staff should only be denying an officer entry to a location if the search is without cause. Command Staff who are reported and found guilty of abusing this authority will be severely punished. In addition, a Security Officer may not withhold the reason for a search from the Head of the Department being searched or the individual receiving a body search. 4. Neglect of Duty by Command Lastly, there has been some confusion regarding the ability for a member of Command to commit Neglect of Duty. Based on the current definition of Neglect of Duty, many heads believed themselves incapable of committing the infraction. In response, we've chosen to expand upon the regulation to explicitly define the circumstances under which a Head of Staff may fall under Neglect of Duty. In order for a Head of Staff to be charged with Neglect of Duty, a Captain level decision must be made in support. This will require the ruling of a Captain, Acting Captain, or lacking either, a unanimous vote in support by the remaining Command Staff.