Tainavaa

Now here's the kicker in regards to Skull's thing. It sounds good but at that point we may or may not be keeping the prisoner for longer than they'd actually be in for. If they've done something like infiltration, constant assault, or assault with major injury or anything that is an inherent security risk to let them be without being cleared first, that person has to stay in the holding cell until their charge or they're cleared. I've seen people get upset because I keep potentially dangerous people in holding while we deal with processing them. To which I can only respond "thems the breaks."

I think Skull's point is to let them be because as a security force, your job is to ensure that the station runs smoothly and is secure. Not necessarily to arrest people that break regulations by the book. The regulations exist for a reason. They don't exist to keep anyone from doing anything slightly questionable ever. For example, there's no bartender and someone hops the bar for a drink. Is it a technical trespass? Yes. But at that point should the regulation be enforced? Not really. But the regulations, your bosses, the staff, and other players aren't going to teach you to contextually enforce regulations because people have a hard time deciding what's worth enforcing and at what point. It's better to enforce everything than to enforce nothing. Now if there IS a bartender, and someone hips the counter. That's a different story. I believe skull is saying it's better to leave them be because it isn't really a security breach given the context and their motives, and therefore not worth enforcing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What Delta said. You do not undermine the authority of security, Jackboot. You discipline and punish those who have wrongfully imprisoned someone.

Even so, what Jamini said is irrelevant to Ezra pardoning someone for their charges, then bunkering down in the bridge and shooting officers. Then ghosting. The order the captain gave was an illegal order. If the sentence has been ordered, you do not pardon it and undermine security's authority with an invalid order in the first place. You punish/discipline the officer/s that made this wrongful charge and execution. The captain then refused to admit this. The captain ghosted when caught. How security having this luxury is relevant is beyond me.

I think people are taking the injunction against Terrence Frank as an injunction against ALL internal affairs agents. I don't think heads of staff can put a stop to internal affairs investigations if they're doing it by the books.

Song of the Stars seems like a character much different than Draculabot usually plays, from what I've seen. A treant sage, as opposed to a lot of screaming... I've noticed that to be a motif across their characters. Rebecca's been a breath of fresh air for me as a character as opposed to many other characters I've seen. A fairly lighthearted person that can be a little silly and over the top at times. A very enjoyable character for me; I'd like to see them play a diona. The only thing that I think I might see is a diona screaming and rustling over the radio very loudly. I endorse this.

I would like to take this time to refer everyone to Tina's First Aid: Basic Skills, 1st Edition. Thank you.

I KNEW there'd be a flood of diona apps and let me say I did it before it was cool. I've very rarely seen you outside of a synthetic role to tell you the truth but the human characters aren't what interest me. A lot of the times I see synthetics that are basically just humans in a robot's body and I've never liked those characters. As far as I've seen, your characters have never been like that. They were robotic and if they spoke more humanlike, they had robotic or calculating quirks in their personality. Like Laplace's Demon and its fortunetelling gimmick. That's great, and hilarious. You also have a similar interest in diona that I do, but for a different reason it seems. Also that character sounds hilarious. A tree firefighter. Only you can stop space fires! Enough of my babbling though. Your non-human characters are non-human. Your human characters - as far as I know - are human. I can say with confidence I know you'll play a diona like a diona. Also you forgot Ez the Cultmouse.

Da.

You're taken out of the round but I've been murdered in ways that I thought were pretty hilarious or just plain good. I have had fun with death before. I don't die very often, and I have had no issues with dying in the past unless it was grief. And you're not being treated fairly as a prisoner... That is due to IC reasons Its roleplay. Roleplay that. Not everyone wants to be nice to you, not everyone wants you to live. All of that is just incorporating the competitive mindset. Roleplay, through good and bad situations. Literally life or death. I really do not see the issue with dying. People need to die, and I'll happily oblige and make a very engaging death with my murderer if it isn't gank or grief. But maybe that's just because I play to roleplay, through good and bad situations. Not to win.

I think that's a very bad mindset. I've always had the idea that losing can be very fun. And it can be. But not when the only thing that goes through your mind is "I lost." Because the game isnt about winning. It's about roleplaying, through good and bad situations. I'm okay with using just the game's logs for combat in high intensity situations but something slow paced I think warrants a matching tempo. That would be, at least showing something. Losing in a competitive game sucks. This game isn't competitive. People are making it competitive but the truth is, nobody's keeping score. Losing in a non competitive game can be fun, depending on what game. This game is one of those games. Leave the competitive sense and the idea that you HAVE to win out, and you'll find that getting caught with your pants down can be fun.

I say we start employing drill sergeant heads of security to get those officers in line.

One thing that I think is very important for all departments and a virtue that all department heads should keep in mind, is autonomy. There can be no autonomy when the head micromanages and keeps their employees from leaving the department for no good reason. But that's an IC thing (unless the player doesn't know its value OOC). You aren't wrong, though. Update: .. On most accounts.

Replace 'children' with... Actually nah, leave it in. It still fits just fine.

Even if he was, that's irrelevant. It's not his station.

I agree with Meowy. I'd like it to be like, Internal Affairs-only. And the agent is allowed to disclose information on a need-to-know basis or something. But IC, I think it should be regarded as private unless told through official/personal channels.

You are literally asking for him to die for the station. He had every reason to believe he would die. You can continue to be a contrarian. But let's look at some points. Aurora is not his livelihood. It is his workplace. He does not own Aurora, he does not own NanoTrasen. He's just an employee. You are stating what he COULD have done. This is something that only supports my statement that there are many ways to go about a problem. Therefore, it is irrelevant. He did do anything at all. He tried to make sure the crew were safe. He is not a warfighter. He is the head of security. To put it in perspective, let me show you a video of a head of security as it relates to local government. You will notice - while obnoxiously hilarious - that it he is not a warfighter. Yes, he is supposed to identify and handle threats. He identified one, and handled it his way. You do not like the way he handled it. You're correct in that AI aren't that mysterious. However code delta was called. The station is about to blow up. How soon? I don't know. Does he? And is it enough time? Maybe he believed it wasn't. I certainly wouldn't. The station had upwards of thirty crew, and half of them were weapons trained. This relates to the situation with the station's AI... how? I fail to see how this contributes to a tactical advantage regarding an AI. Because the AI controls the station. You're in the AI's territory. With regarding the station specifically he is disregarding the crew's safety. The reasons you have given not to make his decision are as follows His livelihood, which it isn't. regarding the station and its assets, as well as its crew. The AI shakes things up a lot, especially when the station is going to blow up. Staying meant that there was a high likelihood of himself and everyone around him dying. If you say that's not true, then you are already asserting meta knowledge into his character. Because IC, you don't know. You absolutely do not know. He's not going to die for the station, and without asserting meta knowledge as stated earlier, the odds are likely below 1:1.

It's not his job to die for the station. This is an overwhelming threat with an extent that is unknown. A lot of people - I'm going to assume you as well - seem to think that Heads of Security need to be some ever-vigilant supersoldier badass that's ready to respond to any threat at a moment's notice. That is not the case. Hell, even if he WAS an ever-vigilant supersoldier badass, he does not have the intel to accurately and safely say whether this is a threat that the station is ready to encounter. You are looking at it only from your point of view. I'm looking at it particularly from a tactical point of view. What I was taught, is that you do not enter a fight without sufficient intel and the foreseeable odds are roughly 3:1. Neither of this is the case. And in fact, with an artificial intelligence with complete control of the station, I would say the odds were probably much less than 1:1 without going into meta information on mechanical limits of AI and rules as well as the meta knowledge of knowing people will be fanny flustered if they did thing to stop someone (such as VENT EVERYTHING VIOLENTLY). But here's something to think about. All these pieces of evidence you're giving, are pieces of evidence supporting why you should have fought the AI. You have not given pieces of evidence supporting why he should not have made that decision. If you say something along the lines of "we were prepared, ready, etc." that falls under reasons why you should have fought the AI. That is not a reason he should not have made the decision he did.

That is most definitely not the situation, Jamini. He failed to respond in any manner that would seem appropriate to you. From an objective point of view, what he did was just fine. His job is the security and wellbeing of the crew. To him, the security of the crew was very important. The RP was not cut short, the course of the RP was changed through RP. Basically it boils down to you don't like it, and you want something done about it. There are many ways to go about many different things that happen on the station. This in particular was one way that did not sit well with you because you wanted to fight the AI, and you were told no.

I understand that you don't like thing Jamini, but I fail to see how this warrants a complaint as it did not break rules and was not disrupting roleplay.

I disagree entirely on that equivalence. Because operators have an ulterior motive and will profit from an evacuated station. The AI will not. That AI is willing to kill itself. Fuck. That noise. You don't like his decision. Could he have gone another route? Yes. But does it really warrant a complaint? I very much doubt that. Was his conduct very disruptive of roleplay, or did you just want to do thing and didn't get to do thing because you were told no?

Skull articulated it much better than I did but those are my exact sentiments. And I, too, have the sneaking suspicion that command simply does not want to give up their power. Which is not only childish but definitely a sign of power lust.

I will repeat something, and this is very important that it is understood because this is a thing that goes for all things; corporate, governmental, military, and otherwise. Central Command is superior to Aurora's ranks. So I'll repeat this again. If the situation is dire enough for Central Command to directly intervene, it is dire enough for their delegates to take command. You'll find that in that statement, it completely encompasses what you described and anything else you could possibly describe for calling ERT. Because here's a fact. It was dire enough for Central Command to directly intervene. It doesn't matter if you called ERT for something you see as petty. If it is important enough for direct intervention from your superiors, it is important enough to relieve authority to them. Because Central Command is their boss. Not you. They were sent to do a mission. It will be done, no matter how petty.

This is still an IC solution to an OOC problem. And complicated. UPDATE: I want to add in that when you call ERT, you relinquish any authority you have regarding the emergency to ERT. When the cops call in SWAT because they deemed it necessary, guess who's taking command of the operation? Motherfucking SWAT. If the problem is dire enough for Central Command to directly intervene, it is dire enough for their delegates to take command. I wholeheartedly oppose this suggestion.

Which is why everyone needs to lern 2 freedom.