MO_oNyMan

Sure. Even without implementing energy clips an option to pick up a different wepon depending on preference is always nice to have. If you're dissuaded by the low ammo and difficulties in recharging you can always pick up a ballistic one. Energy clips both for antag and general use would be very nice to see

Coroner then would look into the cause of death (which medics don't do and we don't have a coroner slot to do it for them) While in theory it's not that hard, what if medical refuses to hand over the body for whatever reason? Would they be in the wrong? They should be, right? But they're not breaking any regulations by doing so. There's no policy regarding what should be done in this situation. Neglect of duty can only be applied with a blessing of a head of staff (which may be busy or absent). And you can't retrieve it yourself because CSI doesn't have access to medbay general area and bodies are often misplaced in the tempomorgue (which is an additional two rarely used doors you have to bypass). So all you can do is go to a head of staff, to wait for him to give you a free minute, listen to you, understand your situation and fix the problem. All of which takes time and nerves of everyone involved. It can't be globally adressed since there's no global policy covering it, it only can be adressed via a head of staff on a shift by shift basis. To top that off it happens often enough to prompt a creation of this thread (which is more often than i personally would like)

The wish to in some way prompt interactions between players is admirable. However in this particular case the lack of policy causes more frustration than quality interaction. On the other hand implementing it fixes the problem of frustration while also keeping the interaction part. While the intention and reasoning behind the unwilingness to implement this are clear, they do not hold up to reality of what actually goes down in med/sec interactions.

If the dismiss is going to stay i'm going to need some questions answered: Why does a situation as serious as investigation of possible murder have zero policy surrounding the process? Subsequently, why in a situation as serious as investigation of possible murder should an investigator rely on good will of the crew to allow him to even start doing his job? Every single job on the station works autonomously, meaning that they carry on their assigned duties unless specifically ordered not to by their superior. Why should CSI has it the other way around, hanging out idly until HoS specifically orders him to look into something? Why on a station that is considered a safe envirnment and where death almost never happens shouldn't any fatal incidents be considered suspicious by default despite fitting the criteria of being suspicious of existing IRL policies used by investigators? Why should murder commited without witnesses be considered less of a concern than a murder commited with an officer witnessing it? If authority over a dead body depends on circumstances surrounding it, what are the circumstances allowing the CSI to take priority? What are the circumstances allowing the medics to take priority? What are the consequences of failing to recognise such circumstances? Does the lack of policy on this matter mean that all murder investigations are effectively indefinitely suspended in the lack of command staff if medics are unwilling to cooperate? The IR shows a precedent of a CSI acting as if the suggested policy was implemented. Can every other CSI do the same thing and not get punished by the CCIA? If no, what made this particular CSI special, allowing him to act in that way? If yes, what reason is there to not implement the policy? [mention]Synnono[/mention]

As stated multiple times before, the noir items are not being taken away. They are being moved to the loadout. I'm not sure where this preconceived notion of items in the loadout being unavailable to detectives come from but i can assure you it's not true. As for increasing the wardrobe options (as, again, stated before) a new jacket is likely to appear in place of the trenchcoat in the detective's locker. Being uniformed (like the CSI's jacket) it would make more sense for it to be job-restricted and therefore unavailable in the loadout

Loadout can be easily changed from shift to shift as long as you stay inside the point limit Multiple detectives wear the same clothes, i wouldn't exactly call the style "iconic" to one specific character. Moreover the clothes are not being removed, you can still pick them from the loadout See previous point about loadout not being a fixed character variable (unlike for example name) i have no idea what exactly the issue here. In the first part the problem appears to be the removal of the trenchcoat, which is untrue (it is not being removed) and you point it out in second part by saying "all you're going to do is hand out more trench coats for everyone to use". In the second part the problem is that you don't want everyone to be able to use trenchcoats which is weird considering they already have access to trenchcoats and some fedoras and you point it out yourself in the third part. Clarify what the concern is if you want me to adress it

i don't care if you make the detective's clothes mundane or give them armor values of a deathsquad trooper. What i care about is a negative impact on the gameplay caused by pushing a counter-productive gimmick using standard gear items. Whether the detectives should for some reason have armored t-shirts and jeans or not is not the topic of the suggestion. Moreover as already stated the vest is not being removed. If you want protection - wear it, noone prohibits you from doing so If it is a nonissue then please pick a jacket with similar armor values to the pr. Such as a leather jacket, bomber jacket, or similar. i'm currently awaiting for the new sprite for the jacket from [mention]Itanimulli[/mention]. If the PR gets approved and the sprite would still not be ready i could add one of the existing jackets to replace the trenchcoat

Why would a corporate detective have an extra armored piece of clothing? Even officers don't get one. And they are supposed to be the first response to all violent encounters There it is. This was not the intent of the suggestion. You need to replace the trenchcoat with an item of similar armor value or you are nerfing detective as a punishment for their fashion choices. i don't care if you make the detective's clothes mundane or give them armor values of a deathsquad trooper. What i care about is a negative impact on the gameplay caused by pushing a counter-productive gimmick using standard gear items. Whether the detectives should for some reason have armored t-shirts and jeans or not is not the topic of the suggestion. Moreover as already stated the vest is not being removed. If you want protection - wear it, noone prohibits you from doing so

They already have an armored coat. It's called armor vest and it's not being removed A vest isnt a coat. Its a vest. You are removing a piece of armored clothing. They will have one less armored exterior piece of clothing. Why would a corporate detective have an extra armored piece of clothing? Even officers don't get one. And they are supposed to be the first response to all violent encounters

They already have an armored coat. It's called armor vest and it's not being removed

The idea is indeed for you to start with nothing but a shirt (at least until the modern jacket is sprited). The whole range of options in the wardrobe is already available. It's called the loadout. You can pick and choose the attire you want from there (including the noir gear that is being moved from the detective's locker to the loadout)

It's not about "will they?" as much as it is about "should they?". Security is supposed to enforce the regulations. The regulation is there. Enforce it. If you won't - that's effectively neglect of duty which is an offense of its own. It's not about whether you trust this dude or not, it's about whether you have evidence. If you do and you still get foiled by other officers/warden/HoS - file an IR. Will CCIA not support an officer with concrete evidence of other officer's guilt in such an IR? Emergency is an exception to every situation. Your own survival in the moment is inherently more important than workplace guidlines. You won't charge someone who broke into restricted area to escape a station breach with infiltration. You won't charge an officer who picked up a lying on the floor gun to fight off a violent attacker. On the other hand using heisters' weapons for the sole reason of it saving money is what is called "abuse" and it is covered by the regulation. The logic here is you commit a crime - you recieve a punishment. The worse a crime is the harsher the punishment should be. Crewmembers posessing contraband are guilty of illegaly owning a dangerous item. Officers that confiscated said item and kept it for himself is guilty of the same thing and abusing their authority in order to do it on top of that, so their crime is slightly worse which is reflected in suggested sentence increase. Their rank shouldn't be taken in consideration when determining punishment, only their crimes. That's what i meant when i said "officers are not special". Correct. However again, internal logic of flexible punishments is the worse the crime - the harsher the punishment. The punishment for 204 both minimal and maximal is leagues below punishments 212 and 213. For what exact reason? I have no idea. In order to fix the logical inconsistency and discourage security players from abusing their authority 15 minutes, re-confiscation of items and/or suspension or demotion request on first offense. Up to 20 minutes and suspension on repeated offense. If other officers or HoS will for no apparent reason decide to drop the charges - gather all the relevant evidence and file an IR. The idea behind increased punishment is that it is supposed to discourage something. In this case abuse of equipment. Will it give immediate drastic results in overall security behaviour? Unlikely. Will it discourage some officers from taking a cool lightsaber to cut walls with it just in case in perspective? Definitely Not sure what "start enforcing" means here. Some officers already do. I do. Some people don't. However the increased punishment does not encourage you to charge someone. It discourages people charged from commiting a crime. When someone does something bad you slap them. When they do it again you slap them harder. To a point where taking an undesirable course of behaviour is associated with the punishment, The harsher the punishment is the more efficient will it be in preventing the action. Increasing the punishment to fit the system on equal grounds with every other crewmember and applying it will most definitely discourage corruption in security and the "officers are above the regulations" mentality. Paired with at least a couple of people not afraid to charge and IR fellow officers it will give results.

The place is called "evidence storage". A fairly big room behind the equipment room filled with lockers to store evidence and contraband

Clowns were flavour too. Don't see them around anymore. Can't say i'm upset about it

The vest still provides armor. The upcoming jacket might have armor but frankly i would rather it didn't. If there's an emergency - wear a vest

The issue with authority over dead bodies is that it's not exactly a petty thing. It's not a cook refusing to make you a cheesburger. It's looking into a possible death with a purpose to prevent further possible deaths. Relying on someone's good will to prevent someone from dying is a considerable security risk. Medbay is having a bad day, you go to CMO, he's busy, you go to the captain, hoping he will give you a minute of his time. If there's no captain you go to HoS who will have to negotiate with a busy CMO. If he fails he will have to start a command vote to relieve him. To top it off it can't even be IR'd since there's no policy set in stone that medics would be breaking in this case so the next shift it can all start over again. And it would be all fine but murder investigations are somewhat of a time-sensitive issue where every other minute can lead to another death that will start the cycle again and so on and so forth until a body found on a 5 minute mark remains unprocessed until the transfer call. In the IR mentioned in the beginning the dude ignored the wiki guidelines and took a body for an autopsy in circumstances that strongly suggested accidental death going over the medbay entirely and didn't get punished for it. So the grand question of this suggestion is: can every other forensic tech do the same? I frankly don't see why not

Security is not police per say but their goals are pretty much the same. Which is to stomp crime in a given area for the good of their employers (either the company or the government). The criteria presented is used to determine if the death is suspicious and if it requires investigation. If it is indeed suspicious then failure to investigate would cause possible further damages to the company due to the criminal walking free and doing his dirty deeds. Which is undesirable by the company. Which is why they hired the CSI to look into such deaths. Doesn't matter if the CSI is a judiciary empowered coroner, he works for the company to solve company problems. And really any workplace death is pretty suspicious and should be looked into if only briefly for reasons stated above. And after corporate investigation is done government coroners can look into it or ditch the body altogether, corporate security doesn't really care about what happens with perps after the shift. Their sole purpose is to prevent damages to the station and crew in the moment. While you indeed can do anything you need to do by communicating the command i don't see why would we make the CSI to bother the captain any time a dead body comes up. What if there is no captain? What if there is no command staff? Officers technically can do anything they need by communicating with command as well. See the perp? Ask the captain to order you to arrest him. Yet they have guidelines that let them act on their own to speed up the process and overall increase realism. So why shouldn't the CSI get one?

Regulation in question: Abuse of confiscated equipment To take and use equipment confiscated as evidence. Security shouldn't be using evidence for anything but evidence. Taking "trophies" or using weapons and items seized from operatives counts as this. 10 minutes, re-confiscation of equipment; Repeated offense: Suspension or demotion So the regulation applies to security members that upon taking stuff from people carry it around and use it instead of properly storing it. Items get confiscated because of two reasons: 1) They are illegal and their current holder should not have them (contraband) 2) Mundane items that have value to any investigation as evidence What would be done to regular crewmembers found doing the same thing? 1) Posession and use of prohibited items falls under the Contraband regulation. 15 minutes and confiscation of said items - 20 minutes and demotion 2) Tampering with evidence is considered Sabotage. 15 minutes and/or demotion - 30 minutes, suspension and/or tracking implant Two guys are doing the same thing but the one with an officer's id gets a lesser sentence. The regulation in question fails to follow the internal crime-consequence logic of regulations. The discussion was held in security discord, no arguments were found to justify this. So overall I think the internal logic should be fixed. Officers are not special, they as those who enforce regulations and should not be held to lower standards. Quiet on the contrary, in my opinion they should be held to a higher one. Why do they get a pass on this one i do not fully understand. Seems like a mistake. So the suggestion is to change the punishment for Abuse of Confiscated Equipment regulation breach: 15 minutes, reconfiscation of equipment and/or suspension or demotion Repeated offense: 20 minutes and suspension On a sidenote it plays nicely into the whole "security conspiracy" storyline that was brought up recently so it could be implemented as a part of it as Nathan fixing the corrupt ways of security instead of just silently changing the regulation.

The wording (and font of choice) of it make it look like it's not optional. If a mandatory procedure can't be enforced ICly how does one even go about it? Consistency in IC and OOC guidelines is important here. Either make the guide say that autopsy comes first or make it an IC policy that one can enforce. As a default policy, this does not strike me as realistic. While meta-knowledge of the game and experience on server may tempt a player to assume that every death is a suspicious death requiring security intervention, this is not always the case. From the standpoint of 'normal' operations, which in-world policies should ideally be written for, it seems undesirable that most workplace deaths should be treated as suspicious. If there is reason to believe that a security investigation is needed, that need should be communicated through the appropriate command staff, and considerations can made at that level for evidence gathering between security and other departments. It's a station where people are not expected to die. A pretty safe setting. All crewmembers go through physical and psychological evaluations prior to getting employed. Any death is outstanding and assuming the worst in this case is hardly meta. Therefore to determine if it was accidental or not is up to the qualified professional (in this case CSI). When it comes to realism, here's a list of things that IRL require a coroner be called to look into the cause of death as it is by law is deemed suspicious by default: - deaths that occur suddenly and unexpectedly (basically any death occuring on station barring death from viruses and poison) - deaths at a construction or mining site (all miner accidents) - deaths while in police custody or while a person is incarcerated in a correctional facility (all deaths of prisoners and detainees) - deaths when the use of force by a police officer is the cause of death (deaths during arrests) - deaths that appear to be the result of an accident, suicide or homicide (all "accidents", and obvious suicides and homicides) - the person died while under anaesthetic or during a medical operation or procedure, or if the death appears to have been caused by the anaesthetic, operation or procedure (all deaths on a surgery table. Basically any death in medical) - Death occurs within 24 hours of admission to a hospital during an acute or unexplained rapidly fatal illness, for which a reasonable natural cause has not been established; or, a person is admitted to the hospital in coma and dies within 24 hours without having regained consciousness (basically any critical patient that is hauled to medbay and poison) Overall the picture is pretty clear. On station deaths that IRL would be considered "not suspicious" and wouldn't be investigated simply do not occur . I don't think people canonically die on station too often either. So it's pretty realistic to consider every death suspicious until its circumstances become clear. What I am inferring from this is that you would like security to be able to completely carry out an investigation before releasing the body to medical or other personnel. I don't like this because it would tie up the body (and the player who was in it) for an indeterminate period of time, depending on the staff responding, their workload, competency, and priorities, and whether or not a wizard just fireballed the forensics lab. And that's BEFORE we go through all the same things with medical, and whether or not the wizard just fireballed the medbay. The wording is slightly off. What i meant is all procedures regarding the body should be carried out before releasing it to medical. You process the scene, you take the body to the lab, you do the autopsy, you get the body to medical and then you carry on with follow up on investigation. Autopsy itself doesn't take that much time so it would delay the possible cloning only slightly (around a couple of minutes or so) In ideal world CSI would come to medbay, ask for the body, be handed the body and return it after the examination. The reality is that it's almost never the case. Cadavers are the cornerstone of medbay/security interactions and the lack of comprehensive policy on it makes this interaction a nightmare instead of a professional exchange. If the question of who should handle the body first depends on circumstances of death, what are the circumstances when CSI can take the body first? What are the circumstances when medics should have the body first? What if either of them doesn't do it? What if one side refuses to acknowledge these circumstances? Why should they go straight to the captain, bother him and hope he is in the good mood today to fix the problem? The policy clarifying all these questions is needed. This suggestion provides the clarification. Autopsy doesn't take that long to take a somewhat serious impact on the gameplay and with how things are now it's impossible to enforce either of the sides (forensics holding the body, refusing to give it to medics or vice versa) so it wouldn't really change anything. If wiki page could change the autopsy clause to "autopsy should be conducted in a timely manner. Players should be allowed to reenter the round as soon as possible" which would imply security takes priority instead of medical that would fix all of the issues surrounding this

read the suggestion to the end

the suggestion is not to remove the manifest but to restrict it from common crew. Security still has access to records, medical still has access to records, command still has access to manifest

There's very little order in who is supposed to do what when dealing with dead bodies. Until recently i was under impression that when a dead body is found the standard procedure is as following: Security processes the scene -> medbay takes the body for attempted cloning -> if security needs autopsy done they requisition the body from medbay -> body gets back to medbay to be stored in morgue. This interpretation is based on forensics wiki guide (https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Forensic_Technician). More specifically the "Performing Autopsies" paragraph where it says in caps and bold ONLY PERFORM AUTOPSIES AFTER A CLONING ATTEMPT ON THE BODY HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. The logic behind it is that from an OOC standpoint players should be attempted to be brought back into the round as soon as possible and i partially agree. I presumed the bold and capitalised mention of autopsy being performed after the cloning attempt is important and should be considered policy. However it seems to not be the case. In the recent CCIA ruling on an IR (https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=10899) it was stated that "As much of this incident was due to belief in non-existent policy, to clarify: Neither medical or security takes priority over a body, it is circumstantial, if security wishes to conduct a crime scene investigation, they should inform medical of such." . Which basically goes over existing guidelines. So, considering the confusion surrounding this fairly common part of medical-security interactions and presuming the existing guidelines are outdated due to being ignored by the CCIA i'm suggesting to build new solid policy regardging authority over dead bodies from the ground-up. - Deceased crewmembers are evidence and fall under jurisdiction of security - Security takes over dead bodies and carries out all required for investigation procedures - Removing a dead body from the crime scene is tampering with evidence and is considered sabotage - After finishing all investigation-related procedures or after concluding that the death has no signs of foul play security discharges the body to medical for medical proceedings (such as cloning or storing) - Injured (but not dead) personnel is still under the medical jurisdiction (as it was before) This model is more realistic, it allows for a more efficient investigations and solves the problem of investigators and medics constantly bitching at each other over cadavers When it comes for cons, this model obviously slows the cloning process of the characters. However a) Almost noone clones bodies since the psych update; b) Autopsy does not take an awful lot of time to perform; c) The guidelines of cloning required to be done before autopsy (forensic tech wiki) are ignored and not enforced anyways (as showcased by the IR) So if the corresponding wiki pages (paramedic and forensics) could be updated to reflect this change that would be great

Make PDA messages have station time at which they've been sent by them. It helps immensely with orienting in timeline of station events. Now instead of saying "event x happened after/before event y" to signify the approximate timeframe you'll be able to estimate the time a bit more precise using messages. So for example if you sent a message to someone to meet with him you'd be able to get a more or less precise time of when this happened (+- a minute or so) using timestamp on your PDA messages. NT chat on laptops already has this feature but noone uses it. Getting it on a PDA would be helpful

there's a giant blinking exclamation mark at the console when it recieves a message, wdym there's no guarantee they will check those? If only to prevent accidental epileptic seizure

Request console -> Relay anonymous information -> Security It would be very nice to see other types of communication aside from headsets and pdas used