Munks

Acquire loadout armband. Acquire hand labeller. Hand label disability to armband. Make use of custom emotes.

If I don't want to play it i'm not obligated to, and if it doesn't have enough people without me then I guess not enough people are interested enough for it to win

You need access to use the smartfridge. It's no less hygienic than the real life practice of showing food available from behind a glass counter.

Chief Engineer involved. The situation was laid out in detail to the mod handling the complaint at which point my actions were greenlit. Antagonist stands right in front of me spawning in traitor gear. Assuming its just a new and not yet competent player I ignore it. Later on when my hardsuit is stolen, I use the camera on it to track the suit and guide them to it and the antagonist who stole it. Unfortunately they happen to be wearing the hardsuit and spamming the leg actuator function to escape stuns, as well as being impervious to cuffing, so they are absolutely overwhelming the single lone security officer on the shift, whose weapons are completely dried out and still no luck. Seeing this, I initially just stand in front of the thief and push them back to the officer. We begin to disarm each other. After a while of this, I grab a tool nearby in maint and hit them in the leg with it trying to knock them over for Sec to grab ahold of them (they're wearing a hardsuit so this does absolutely nothing). Meanwhile, they're using whatever tools they have to stab me as well. I back off for a short bit, and then I once again find the thief at the atmos maintenance door. Considering they've made a habit of hacking into restricted areas already, including my office (and at the time I also believed them to have brokein into the Captain's Office and stolen the Spare ID though this turned out not to be the case as another traitor eventually emerged) I secure the fire axe, and continue to follow the thief through maintenance. As I'm following them, they (with the hardsuit) start trying to vent the area (and me) to space, which is decidedly lethal, so I try to incapacitate them. Faced with either that, or allowing OP to break through and space me (as well as letting a thief disappear with the advanced hardsuit, and at the time believed to have all access) it seemed like a much preferable option. I hit them a couple of swings at a time, stopping and backing off repeatedly to let them speak or possible even surrender, but each time they either continue coming at me to try and fight or get away. At this point, whenever I managed to knock them down, I also immediately stopped conflict and tried to get them somewhere where they could be nonlethally contained, but they instantly jumped back up and continued to attack. Finally at one point I had them downed long enough to put them into a locker, but they presumably succumbed when they realized they were done. Its unfortunate circumstances to be sure but the entire response was me, and the single lone security officer that was on at the time, and he was obviously overwhelmed by the situation and eventually stopped responding to it at all. As chief engineer it was a higher priority to me to prevent a rogue engineer from disappearing with my hardsuit (with RCD) and at the time the access they were thought to have stolen. OP made themselves impervious to stunning or any form of restraint via their hardsuit, and continued to be violent and resistant to capture no matter what or how many times they could have stopped to talk. If you actually tried to tell the mod that the situation was "i stole the hardsuit and got axed to death", that's a pretty bold faced lie. When the incident started we stood there and tried to talk to you and you just silently ran. In fact you blatantly took advantage of us trying to talk to you because you just pulled us out of the way and ran up the ladder without a fight. Every time we passively tried to stop you you fought or ran, and when we started physically trying to stop you, because you were using the hardsuit specifically to prevent nonlethal means of capture, you just continued nonstop to fight us, culminating in you trying to vent me and getting the axe used on you for it. After taking you to the nearest security officer i could find, you were immediately cloned and allowed to do whatever it was you wandered around doing for the rest of the shift.

God forbid you have to actually deal with a loss of individuality and merely being a mass-produced product as a robot. Yeah, why should robot characters have to deal with issues inherent to being robots. It'll be no worse than a cloned player being valid hungry, or, you know, joining the ERT.

I'm a fan of the general idea of this though I guess I can see where people are coming from when it seems a little too punishing to lok people out of their character customization and weaken them for the remainder of the round. I think its best off with Kaed's idea of ordering branded parts from Cargo, and the basic unbranded makeshift option in the OP is just there to be used in a punch, when the IPC is absolutely needed back right now (medical, engineering, sec emergencies etc). Additionally would it be possible to have some way of recycling old parts? Assuming they weren't completely annihilated, maybe just the limbs could be reusable, albeit with glitchy and less-than-ideal performance based on what kind of damage they took when the original owner was being killed.. Possibly with the option for the roboticist to manually reinforce the limb themselves to at least bring it closer to its original resiliency. That said I'd rather do this than stick with IPC revival in its current state. No xeno shells, please.

You've read the thread and built a genuine grasp of the issue/situation and it shows Does repeated behavior for over five months count as a recurring to you? Because I think it's a pretty noteworthy server issue, Scheveningen, how complacent the server is with whitelist applicants playing nice and just telling people what they want to hear to get their whitelist accepted, and then doing absolutely nothing whatsoever to actually uphold the roleplay standards they acted like they were interested in. A Tajara who writes an adequately knowledgeable story for their whitelist about how the war on ahdomai has effected their life, and then when accepted completely drops all pretenses and makes a purple colored cutesy fursona insert that has no ties whatsoever to the lore should not be acceptable, because they don't give a shit. An unathi applicant that makes a big deal about how totally into the traditions and struggles in unathi society they are, and when accepted just makes a random dude who snuggles xenos and doesn't bother to be anything but a scaled human should not be acceptable, because they're a fursona and they don't give a shit. Based on the same logic, an IPC applicant that makes a big deal about how interesting the intricacies of being a liberated computer slave trying to find its place in the world, and understand and adapt to human emotion and influence, and then turns around and makes a bright colorful walking memebot that exists solely to cuddle with other robots and works as an eternal security cadet should not be acceptable either. 5 months since ODIN's application was accepted, 5 months of them knowing the issue and not giving a fuck. 5 months is a lot of minutes. I think it's more than 20 It's remarkable that you make such a big deal about addressing the real issues but when the subject of actually upholding the whitelist standards comes up suddenly its just not that big a deal you guys who cares more on. The whitelists may as well be auto-accept at this point. They're a joke.

This immature humanbot gameplay has been an issue with ODIN since before they even got their whitelist for IPC. They acted like this when they were a borg, it was brought up in their whitelist app and they acknowledged the need to improve (they didnt) and they further acknowledged their need to improve after they were accepted, which again was just telling us what we wanted to hear. When asked what makes IPC characters different in their app, their answer was "A lack of empathy, and a lack of most human and alien emotions." I can say with full confidence that in the, what, 5 months since they got whitelisted they haven't even bothered trying to roleplay this. If we're actually going to start doing something about the state of IPC roleplay then we should actually start somewhere at some point. Sytic knows that the problem is with their roleplay. They just don't care and don't intend to improve on it. They have it set in their mind what kind of character they want to play and thats how they're going to play it.

I guarantee this is just a roundabout way of trying to get security skirt uniforms.

-1 can we stop having a million people asking for special snowflake unique military uniforms to parade around their workplace in please at this point ideally it should just be officially sanctioned events where actual recruiters, dignitaries, or represenatives come along with their uniforms, its stupid that we're flooded with just random people who happen to be in the space muhreens wanting to be allowed to come to work in their uniform for attention. this isn't a military rp

1) Some info on residents, who they are, why they're here, might be nice. People just see it as "assistant with medbay access", they don't realize they are actual doctors already, and don't realize they're meant to have specialized in something before they got here. Also others dont seem to know that residents can do normal doctor things as long as they have a supervising. But again thats a problem with people not reading 2) ez 3) If it's noticed and reported to the CMO/HoP/Cap that a 22 year old somehow got hired as a doctor without a degree, and they can't be assed to enforce hrp guidelines on an hrp server then elevating it via a staff evaluation should hopefully get results, if the appropriate people manage to act like they care. That'd be good enough for me but thankfully it's been handled on station 4) No 5) Please just get rid of Emergency Physicians. They're a relic from before the EMT role existed. No one knows what they are and why they are and they don't want to. It's just used as an extra paramedic slot and because it has "emergency" in its name and starts with a high vis jacket on, CMOs tend not to care. While its all fine and dandy for most people on the outside looking in, as a Paramedic with already little enough to do, its an annoying feeling to have to compete with these people because they have more access than you and more permission/ability to turn around and drag the patient deeper into the depths of medbay for surgery/treatment/cloning too. Imagine it as if Forensic Tech exists, but also Security Officers were fully able to do forensic investigations too and had access to everything they needed, only difference is Forensic Techs just have a tiny special little room to sit in. In game, the specialized role of "stabilizing people for further treatment" in between medics and the other doctors is of no value. 6) I only ever see nurses there to talk and be cute anyway, no change

Yes, the common theme is "the station was in crisis mode and very important people were actively being murdered, or already were murdered". Unusual people tend to help out during crises, especially when its "Security is dead" or "the Captain is actively being murdered". I'd say the common theme in this thread is also "for some reason a loyalty implanted individual doing things is outrageous that wouldn't be if it was a random person of any other role". If all of ISD was murdered, and station defense devolved to a militia, a bartender shooting someone who was coming at him with a hand grenade would not catch a second glance, it would be considered standard self-defense during a time where there was literally no one around to save him and not doing so meant guaranteed death. If the Captain was in the process of being actively murdered, and a security officer told an assistant who was standing there watching to help disrupt camera coverage by means of a conveniently located blunt object, the assistant would be required to do so because he was given an order by ISD during a crisis situation and no one would give him doing so a second thought. But suddenly someone who otherwise is just an office worker and in that situation he's legally obligated to sit by while miners and gardeners do help out because it's just common sense, because he's an IA and IAs are not ISD and IAs are apparently supposed to distance themselves from any sort of involvement in the round whatsoever just to demonstrate how not Security they are. I'm noticing a common theme of "we don't give a shit about high roleplay if it inconveniences our antag play" too, because you look like you expect someone to just stand there and die based on an OOC expectation of IA to do everything physically possible to distance themselves from antagonist involvement because antagonist involvement is a Security thing and IAAs just aren't security even when this involvement is basic instinctive response that any realistic person would take.

If I'm being vented (entire bridge set to panic siphon), and the only way for me to escape is to use a nearby fire axe for its intended purpose (getting through the shutters)... then it stands to reason I'd use them It was announced over comms. Like, by both the malf AI (as part of its gimmick) and the crew. Literally got told to do something about cameras, and ISD was busy helping the Captain not die. No I didn't.

I did jump the gun and was much too quick to block you, regardless of whether or not I stand by what I did. I was already worse enough off from our IC interaction, and I let it impact our OOC conversation for which I apologize. However, as for the subject of the conversation itself, it was inevitably going to take the same exact route this thread is taking. You take issue with actions that I stand by, both in my response to your antag, as well as me writing a report on someone for arresting without warrant. What I see as a mistake was my breach of impartiality while talking to the Head of Security, but that isn't something that was brought up. I don't "refuse to consider my actions or think about how they were wrong". I've explained them repeatedly here and to you privately, and I explained them when I was ahelped at the time. Do you think this would have gone any differently if it was kept private?

As far as I was able to gather, the Captain called out illegal activity, and ISD responded. It would have absolutely been a special case if he specifically ordered the arrest, but thats a special case that I can't gather considering I myself don't have log access, and in character even more limited a viewpoint. The Officer when questioned stated simply defended it saying "the captain witnessed it". It would have changed everything if he said "the captain straight up ordered the arrest" but he only defended his actions saying it was witnessed, so he was under no pressure to arrest immediately and break regulations. I don't just tell command what to wear, I notify them that, and if, what they are wearing is breaking RN #580319.002. My logic for pushing this, even towards Heads of Staff if they are within the specified departments, is that it's not just a matter of "wear this because its issued to you". It's because all those specified fall under personal protective equipment, health and safety, or in ISD's case the need to be properly identifiable as Security. Whenever this comes up, I send a couple of PDA messages poking them about "hey, your uniform is a safety violation, please wear your safety gear" as was recommended in a post by ForgottenTraveller. I poke them, and if they continue to make an issue of it (no one ever has) I would possibly poke their head of staff. Wearing PPE is a legitimate safety concern and this is a high roleplay server. Pushing regulation like this is the entire point of the IA role. And for the record, you have no need to be concerned personally because Heads of Personnel (and Captains, and CMO/RD if they're just sitting around) are not covered. Yes, Captains. I have never told a captain what to wear. I have asked one captain, in conjunction with a head of security, to safely store their items in their locker versus dumping them in the hallway under the same logic that it'd be asked of ISD personnel to safely store their uniforms, which is because of the authority commanded by these uniforms, and they faxed CCIA over it, which is fucking insane. Do you want IAs to just... sit around and do nothing? It doesn't matter if it doesn't happen often, good, lets keep it from happening often. Literally all that took place here was a quick investigation of the incident, which found that someone went into a department on code green and arrested someone without warrant. It was found to be unlawful and illegal arrest was recommended and it was forwarded to the Head of Security (who didn't read it). This occurred on code green, where regulations should be upheld strictly, especially when it comes to arrests. I'm not the one that made a complaint about it. I didn't follow him around all round yelling at him over it. I wrote a short complaint which found that a single medium-level infraction occurred, and my report got ignored. That's it. If you want to take the "is this really worth all the trouble???" stance then you should direct it towards those who made trouble about it. And yes reminding people of regulations and identifying infractions on those regulations to forward to security definitely is IA's duty.

Are you asking me why I reported misconduct on the part of an officer to his relevant department head, rather than going straight to CCIA? Is advising the entire ISD department (which is one single officer at the time) taking authority over Security? If so I think the wiki needs revision. I should fall back and report to the deceased officer who this person had killed and was the only member of ISD at the time? You're not reading, and this is going in circles.

You bringing up mutiny still makes no sense. Holding a Captain to corporate regulations is not mutiny. It's literally what IA exists for. As I already explained, my offense was the fact that I attempted to do a favor by allowing someone to have his own separate investigation and he turned it into an accusation of being a poor IA player because I wasn't doing my part to investigate. Do you have anything actually worthwhile to complain about here or are you just interested in being caustic as usual and cherrypicking out-of-context quotes that have already been covered plenty? Are you going to read my posts yet?

The situation involved is a medium-level infraction. And in this case as far as I'm aware the Captain reported an incident, there was no reason for ISD to make no effort whatsoever to get a warrant. I don't know where the "IAA suggesting mutiny" thing is coming from considering at no point did I even consider, or raise the subject of having a Head arrested. I blocked the byond conversation because it went in circles just about as much as this very thread is going, if you don't know what you're talking about and have no context for any of this I don't know why you're involved.

Hi. I'd like if you could list some actual examples of this, because from what I can tell I specifically go out of my way to avoid involving myself in ISD and Command affairs during regular station operation (as in, when ISD isn't entirely dead and there is no command) and you in particular I notice involving with Command and Sec a lot, for example the very first time I saw your IAA you marched into a crime scene, past Security tape, and demanded that the scene be opened up because you personally didn't believe that there was anything worth investigating; and resorting to "respect my IA authority" when I asked you to let ISD handle ISD affairs. This is par for the course for you, and it's not limited to IAA -- if you are who I think you are, you faxed CCIA over being asked over comms by me and a Head of Security to securely store your uniform items in your locker versus dumping it in the hallway. I don't think you're really in a place to pass judgement particularly because we have not interacted to my knowledge outside of two specific instances of me taking issue with poor conduct on your part, because you're even more involved in station command than I am on a regular basis, and because despite you being guilty of the exact things you accuse me of (you bought a gun from a merchant as IAA and joined a station militia to repel hostiles despite ISD still being active very recently) and despite us having very little IC interaction or involvement you're still trying to weigh in just because you're OPs friend. Just because the Captain calls out someone breaking violations doesn't mean Security can just run in and grab them and threaten them with additional charges for asking for a warrant on code green. I don't know why you think that Captains, on Code Green, can just ignore regulations. As a Security Officer you need to make some attempt, at the very least, to obtain a warrant, and if the Captain specifically refuses it then you should raise the issue afterwards. The problem is that the Security Officer was absolutely willing to take advantage and break regulation and simply use the Captain as a cover, he didn't get a warrant, he didn't try to get a warrant, and he didn't want a warrant despite the fact that he was searching a department for somebody and arresting that person on code green. I don't see any value in enabling gameplay like this, nor Security Officers threatening bogus charges to shut people up when they are called out on their regulation breaking behavior. It seems really like the bulk of interest in this complaint is simply an IA investigation where I concluded a single charge of "illegal arrest" was in order for a warrant-less Code Green arrest and recommended such to relevant head of staff which is an IC issue. If so I'd like if we could just get a head admin in to get this over with because I stand by my investigation and its findings, as well as the fact that I defended myself against a hostile and lethally armed antagonist.

The officer did not witness. A drunk doctor is not an immediate danger. These are the two and ONLY two caveats to getting around warrants on Code Green listed on the cited wiki page. Your argument is that the need for warrant is negated because it's the Captain, basically the captain's order didn't break regulations because he isn't subject to regulations because he's the captain. Corporate Regulations state a warrant must be provided on code green. Doesn't matter if the Captain ordered it. CCIA General Notice 15. In NON STANDARD SITUATIONS Captains can go around corporate regulations, and a drunk doctor doesn't qualify. A warrant was not even requested on your part, which would have been a redeeming factor if you were ordered to do it regardless of warrant -- you simply heard a report that someone was acting up so you ran off to act on it. It was an illegal arrest. I reported to the Head of Security that it was an illegal arrest (which he didn't know about when he decided to demote you). I made a slight, but admittedly noticeable fuckup in merely agreeing with his decision as I was leaving, and I acknowledge that. I stand by my report however. You arrested someone illegally. You told me that you arrested someone illegally yourself in the brig -- it sucks i couldn't bring you in for a full interview for the sake of formality, but you told me what I needed in our brief brig conversation so I continued with my report while you were off doing what you did with the miner. It'd be one thing if my proceeding with our brief conversation as evidence unfairly tainted my finding, but you said yourself, you merely would have reiterated what you already said before. That there was no value to further interview. My decision was justified. Half of this complaint is apparently based on this mistake on my part, passingly agreeing with the Head of Security as I left his office. I look forward to correcting this mistake in my future activity, and I appreciate the subtlety of this violation and how I can use what I learned here to better my roleplay in the future. The other half, unfortunately, is the fact that I defended myself on the spot against someone who killed the only ISD member aboard the station, with no Command to consult with. I answered for this already.

And it was code green, and like you just said you didn't personally witness it, you were responding to the Captain witnessing it. You hunted down someone just because the Captain told you to. The Captain is not above regulation. The Captain has access to the warrant program for a reason. The Captain could have taken two seconds to file an arrest warrant, which is required under code green. I didn't "ignore" you, I correctly assumed that you decided that Captain saying to arrest someone means you don't have to have a warrant, which is wrong. There was no emergency situation at the time which required circumvention of warrant regulations, and a doctor being drunk on duty is not an emergency in and of itself. Your only defense of your action was that the Captain told you to do it -- so my conclusion was, and continues to be, that it was unlawful. I fail to see how I repeatedly 'pushed' for demotion. I pointed to illegal arrest in my report findings, considering you arrested someone without a warrant (and threatened them with obstruction simply for asking about the warrant). I took the fact that your only provided explanation was that the Captain ordered it into account for this recommendation. It was unfortunately rushed due to the antag going loud, and I regret that I didn't have time to interview you proper, but I filed anyway because you already made clear in your brief conversation that you arrested without a warrant for something you didn't personally witness because the Captain said it was okay (and after the fact, you personally state that you simply would have reiterated what we already spoke about, so how incomplete was my understanding of the situation?). I later reminded the Head of Security of this incident when he personally called me to his office to discuss your performance, and after he had independently come to the conclusion to demote you -- he didn't notice my report sitting on his fax until well after he decided to demote you, which means my input had literally zero impact on his choice. I personally didn't see the point in the conversation as demoting his staff isn't necessarily an IA issue and I reminded him that he is well within his rights to demote -- maybe adding that I wouldn't personally disagree with his decision to do so based on what I'd learned of him. Then I left the office while the other Agent reported his findings on the shooting which I had no knowledge of and unfortunately decided that he could handle the investigation himself, which now appears to be an infraction on my part because by letting him investigate the matter himself when I personally knew nothing about it, I wasn't doing my duty as an Internal Affairs agent. I can accept that the nod of agreement when the HoS informed me of his decision to demote the Officer was a breach of impartiality. It's a minute, subtle but important detail that I didn't take into account and regardless of it's impact I believe my IAA play is better for being informed that even such small instances of agreement breaks impartiality. But my pointing out the past actions of a potential demotion and possibly agreeing with the decision to demote doesn't strike me as nearly such a breach of IA conduct as you base half your complaint on it being. It's a fuckup to be sure, but one made after the course had been chosen, and did not impact the decision made. If you pointed this out during our byond conversation I would have welcomed it -- instead you reaffirmed my "conduct unbecoming" simply pointing out that between you and me I privately noted that I believed the HoS was right to demote, I showed a personal opinion on the matter and that such a breach of conduct is enough to comprise half of your entire complaint, the other half being me killing you after you already killed someone, were coming after me, and there was no Command or Security whatsoever to look to for help.

For the most recent issue here, I was dismissive of it because it was not my investigation. I investigated a report of him entering the medbay and arresting someone without warrant. The officer was hunting down the person in question without having witnessed it beforehand; my investigation of the incident led me to believe that the arrest took place in a central location of the Medbay, one which the Officer could not have possibly witnessed it without having been in the Medbay already, searching for him. Which is where the issue comes in, he had no warrant to be in medbay nor to be actively hunting them down. I concluded such in my report and sent it to the Head of Security, who concurred. Later on, you had your own case involving the individual. My stance on it then was, and now continues to be: It's none of my business and I have/had no stake in it. Internal Affairs Agents can conduct their own investigations without needing to partner up. He complained to you, and you initiated your investigation. After your investigation, you approached me for my take. I was not informed of the situation, because I specifically went out of my way to let you handle your own investigation without staring over your shoulder. My opinion, which as I've already said IAA's are allowed to have because they are not soulless robots, is that it was not the first time the Officer went out of line that shift. That was it. What offended me during your conversation with me in the byond pager was that you took me distancing myself from your case and allowing you to investigate and conclude whatever you see fit to conclude as "conduct unbecoming an Internal Affairs Agent". I was not aware of the specifics of the incident, I specifically AVOIDED looking into the incident because I believed, now regrettably, that you were perfectly capable of handling your own investigation. I offered my genuine opinion on the situation after you approached me, and it was based on my past experience and my personal take on the officer. It was off the record, unofficial, not written down or forwarded to anyone in any way shape or form. You spun this out of proportion into me being biased and partial and unbecoming an IAA. That is ridiculous and you not getting this is what made me uninterested in continuing our byond conversation. On the small issue of me responding to laser fire -- I did not immediately rush into it as you keep saying I did. I reported it immediately, and I stood there until it was all quiet -- and then I looked. And when I saw ISD had things under control (they were shooting a rogue drone) I had no further interaction on the matter. On the matter of the diona: I only now know that your biased point of view is that of the antag who got killed and it makes me even less willing to touch base with you on it because I was ahelped, bwoinked, and defended my position which was accepted by the staff questioning me at the time. A rampant diona wearing body armor was gallivanting through the station with grenades and a fuel tank heading for the bridge. I, with the lone officer, saw you and ducked away behind cover. We both were at a loss for how to handle it, so I offered advice -- not an order, as you spun it, but professional advice that perhaps it would be best to make a pre-emptive strike as opposed to letting you possible blow your way into the bridge and steal, inevitably, all access. This was a dodgy and controversial decision, and what staff primarily seemed to have an issue with, and I understood that then and still do now. In the heat of the moment, I advised the officer to do it (IAAs are capable of advising, according to the wiki page) and I take responsibility for it as well as continue to believe it was the right call considering this one officer was the extent of security at the time, I believe, and a single lone officer would NOT be prepared to fight an antag diona with body armor, grenades, and all access. You were not killed by it and you proceeded to chase us, justifiably, with grenades. I became separated from the officer when fleeing. This is once again where I will begin taking offense at your biased report of the situation. As I would later learn, the officer died after we were separated. She was killed because she stopped to try to talk to you, and you threw a shortened-detonation grenade at her feet while she was preoccupied talking. Hopefully you see where this frustrates me because now you're writing a complaint about me attacking you when you were talking (you werent but we'll get to that later) when you yourself are guilty of the exact same thing. After we separated, due to the limited size of security at the time and lack of command, I saw fit -- as someone with a loyalty implant and responsibility to act in the interests of Nanotrasen -- to assist and enable the officer in any way possible. I did so by acquiring her a sprayer of weed killer. It was a crude and heavy response, but it was one officer up against a diona wearing body armor with a box of grenades. I sought out the Officer over comms and after a lengthy period of no response, I concluded, correctly, that she was deceased at your hands. I then sought safety in the brig, and found you. You did not try to talk to me. You took out a grenade and immediately moved towards me. Believing there to be no ISD whatsoever, with no one to rely on, I took it upon myself to spray you with the weed killer I gathered for the officer. You continued to attack after I ran out of spray so I retreated -- first into the lobby, where you followed and threw a grenade at me, then into the hallway. After retreating for a second time, telling you to stay back, I brandished an energy sword. I didn't approach you with it, but I did threaten you with it after you continued to charge me. I had the energy sword because just moments prior I had run into another attempted murderer in the hallway, a bartender who was trying to kill someone. I flashed the bartender, and confiscated the weapons while allowing him to run off, unarmed, trying to avoid as much as possible being a judge jury and executioner. After i brandished the sword, you finally keeled over and died from the spray, and i secured your gear (handing it off to ISD as soon as the officer returned from cloning) and distanced myself from any further interaction with ISD or involvement in security matters because I knew full well I had been heavily involved in ISD for an IAA and I did not like that I had to take such involvement as much as I nonetheless believed it justified and necessary. We spoke plenty about this personally, and you made it clear you had no intention to write a complaint about it (yet here we are). I explained every single word of this post to you personally and the conversation continued to go in circles so I ended it. At the time, I thought your vastly oversimplified summary of "hunted and killed an antagonist as IAA" was simply a lack of information, but now that I know its the antag in question simply upset over being killed after having wiped the only ISD officer I do not regret my decision to block you because you weren't getting it and I don't think you will.

Examine info should just be physical characteristics -- what you see from looking at them. This shouldn't be lost just because a body has its fluids drained in my opinion; what the real issue is is people putting non-physical characteristics, or worse, their characters name, in their examine info; and it should simply be enforced that you just put "at a glance" information in your examine info.

Reporting Personnel: Luxo Khazarazir (On the behalf of Chef Betty Summers) Rank of Reporting Personnel: Internal Affairs Agent Game ID: bSs-dg19 Personnel Involved: -Betty Summers, Chef (Victim, source of complaint) -Emily Day, Forensic Technician (Offender) Time of Incident: Around 0045 Station Time 2460-01-17 Real time: ~1817 central(?) Location of Incident: Kitchen, Primary Hallway Nature of Incident: []Workplace Hazard []Accident/Injury []Destruction of Property [/]Neglect of Duty [/]Harassment []Assault [/]Misconduct []Other Overview of the Incident: Forensic Technician Day decided to dress up as a Clown on duty, and take up a pet mouse that she found in maintenance. After bringing the mouse to the kitchen, Chef Summers requested that the mouse be taken away citing health and sanitation concerns. Day began verbally abusing the Chef for her use of mouse traps, and released the mouse, which entered the kitchen and began eating food. The mouse was killed by one of the mouse traps, and Day got hostile, calling the Chef a 'bitch' and a 'fat fuck' and insulting her based on her old age. While Chef Summers was on her way to report the misconduct, Technician Day found her in the hallway and followed her, continuing to harass her and spray her with water. At this point, a security issue began to develop, and Day continued to walk around 'pranking' people dressed as a clown instead of doing her job. When Day was called in for an interview on this matter, she corroborated the above story, as well as showed up drunk. She claims she was drunk because she took a mysterious pill given to her by an unknown, masked individual in maintenance. After leaving, she once again resumed antagonizing the Chef, in the middle of a security crisis. She would continue periodically harassing the Chef despite multiple warnings to stop and an ongoing red alert. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: Incident was reported to me by the victim. No head of staff was present at the time, but later on upon the arrival of a Head of Security, Vakaris Dvorak, they were asked to keep the Forensic Technician away from the Kitchen. By this point however the ISD was far more occupied with other matters so this request was understandably overlooked. Actions taken: Day was personally asked to stay away from the Chef for the remainder of the shift. They continued to harass the Chef regardless, despite a continuously ongoing Security incident. Security was also asked to keep them separate and pursue possible charges for her actions but they were too slight in comparison to the present security threat to be carried out. Additional Information: Original Complaint Form Betty Summers Interview Emily Day Interview

Actually elaborating on some of the other human (or maybe nonhuman?!?!) factions would probably go a long way to helping alleviate how reliant we are on Sol as a source of gimmicks. Maybe all the tacticool ex-space muhreen clones wouldn't all have to focus on a faction that Nanotrasen isn't even friendly with if other militaries (or civilian organizations) got remotely as much attention as Sol. EDIT: As an alternative to just outright stopping the repetitive Sol gimmicks, possibly we could focus more on providing a unique response to them if the "Tau Ceti Government" fax option was utilized? Of course itd be a terrible idea to forgo Central Command outright, but if it gets to the point where assistance is needed rather than merely sending an ERT it could actually be treated as if a foreign government was invading us and assistance could be received from our own. As incredibly sick of these gimmicks as I am, I'm not quite fond of the OOC hand of god reaching down and outright smiting issues like this rather than finding an IC solution, so perhaps the overuse of the gimmick could ICly be discouraged through them getting stomped out by the Tau Ceti government getting appropriately pissed off by Sol incursion. Although the option to fax is already there, there is no IC protocol (as far as I'm aware) that ever necessitates its use and I've never heard of a legit reason to contact the government over Central Command. tldr "corporate" (i.e. Syndicate) raiders and pirate groups could be responded to with Fleet Security Forces, and "government" (the infinite Sol Marine gimmicks) could get manhandled by Tau Ceti, at least until people chill out with them and find something else to do