ben10083

I feel this will destroy medical, as all injuries will be fixed in time with a bandaid and maybe surgery with internal dmg. Overall, I feel that perhaps it should be that humans have a higher tolerance before death (like instead of 100 brute being death, 150).

We should not restrict any security action to ert, this means that any attempt to use the shuttle or antag reasons results in a free excuse for ERT to be called to shut them down, since dept sec is ineffective with dealing with any organized/non-department threats or problems I still stand by only xeno arch being the principal explorers with the shuttle, yes, RD is in charge of them, but the archs are the explorers of the science department, and make the most sense Yep, also coolant (when added) and possibly nanopaste

For another time Yeah I agree that roboticist built RIGs should all be unlocked by default, makes so sense why a fab would lock it in the beginning.

a few things: 1. yes, we are a asteroid orbiting a sun in a cloud of stuff, but why would we have so such derelict stuff right beside us, changing so often? 2. Who will man the pursuit vessel? Non-existant regular security who have to patrol the rest of the station since dept sec can't do so? 3. What if antags take both shuttles? 4. Only xenoarch should do this, otherwise places like RnD will never be manned in favor of "space adventure" (we can increase arch slots) 5. Policy needs to be made regarding this, likely a directive and some reg changes as well. Reason is to have grounds to punish those who abuse/damage the shuttle (and how shuttle is still under regs, but the areas explored are not....). Plus, all of the crew will try to find an excuse to board the shuttle as well, there should be a policy in place to prevent this so we have people on the station. 6. Make sure IPC stuff is added to them Overall, will not make a ruling until these points are addressed.

TO: Arrashi Irrkosh M'rta, Maintenance Technician NSS Aurora FROM: Benedict Smith, CCIAA, NTCC Odin SUBJECT: RE: Incident Report -------------------- BODY: The investigation of this incident has concluded, and appropriate action has been taken for affected individuals. This matter will now be considered resolved. -------------------- DTG: 14-05:21-TAU CETI STANDARD-04-2461 SIGN: Benedict Smith

I can confirm this (although sadly the person in question has cut all communications via discord), and I feel like we need to stop beating people while they are down 1. Yes, what she said can be considered rude, but considering all that happened so far to them, I understand the need to vent off frustration. 2. There has been a general increase in dislike for CCIA and pushes from some vocal staff in regards to many things CCIA-related. This is likely the crux of what JMJ was upset about. 3. Overall, I am pretty worried over the increase of hostilities regarding some staff members and CCIA, and I hope that things calm down. 4. There is no doubt to me that they care about their position as staff and the game, after all, if they didn't, they would not be so frustrated about it in the first place. Caring about something does not mean you like it, it means you pay attention to it. JMJ, I feel you are an excellent member of CCIA, and while I hope you remain in CCIA, I completely understand if you wish to take a break due to recent events and workload, and wish you the best of luck in your recovery Overall, this boils down to a increase in hostility between certain staff members and CCIA, and I cannot stress this enough of the need to reconcile and return to regular business.

Pretty simple really, we overlooked the Republic of Biesel's flag and banner (https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Republic_of_Biesel) This is the nation that occupies our space, this flag or banner can be used for TCFL or other government places down the road, and I hope this is added soon.

IAA is your company liason, they are the representative of central command, and work to help make sure procedures are followed and to resolve intra-crew conflicts. 1. Yes, there can be bad IAAs, but a few bad eggs does not mean they are all bad. 2. They make alot of sense to exist, they are the closest you have to a company legal team, making sure people are not ignoring policies and regulations (which you will need to do for them to be on your case anyways.)

Internal Affairs can be an obstructionist at worse, there is no arguing there, but at best, they are your liaison, the one person you can talk to when command is going south. The Captain and HoP will typically stick up for each other or something redundant. IAA is the one role that keeps everyone in check, yes, the captain and HoP can do IAA job, but not as effective or to the extend IAA can do. The low amount of IAA is also not a good reason for merge, we have various jobs that few people use, yet removing them would be a bad decision due to the negative impacts it would entail. IAA is a underrated role that should remain on the station.

Here are the problems I currently see with this suggestion: 1. No sec channel - Why should dept. security be separated by other security? When organized antags or hard to catch antags appear, communication is a must, something where intercoms of bounced radios is a major liability. 2. Authority - Why is HoS not in charge of any of the department officers? What benefit is it for the RD or CE to be their boss instead? All I see coming from this is the RD ordering the officer to go somewhere (as if the officer would not listen regardless) or for them to ignor any reg violations or to "back off" any of their buddies they don't want charged. 3. Warrants - Who does them now? HoS can't because they can't even talk to the person (announcing to the world that you have a search warrant for cargo is a horrible idea), and I doubt the captain will tolerate being forced to always do warrants. 4. Lowpop - without a full sec team, what do you do if a crime happens and there is no general officer/dept officer for that department? Simple, you are doomed. There should never be a job where if it is not filled the entire department they are in is screwed (No, the entire medical or engineering department being absent doesn't count) 5. Brig Access - Why does dept. officers have to be so aggressively out of security? They cannot even process criminals, meaning if a general officer or warden is not there the criminals cannot be processed and have to go free. Overall, although I understand this suggestion has good intentions, this is not the way we should go about it. -1

As one of the few people who play IAA, I will give my views on this. 1. The main issue against IAAs it seem is that people are upset that they...are doing their job. Let me explain, most of these claims of "stiffling" of creativity just seems to be when IAA reports someone if they ignore a reg or directives. 2. Yes, building without a "permit" is illegal, but such paperwork can be done in less than 5 minutes, even faster if you have the captain or CE in proximity. How is this stifling creativity and expression? In fact, paperwork can go a long way to help express creativity and expression. For example, the executive permission form can allow you to do a multitude of things and can help create very interesting RP scenarios as people deal with the form and/or come up with their own. The best part? Anyone can do it. I have used the executive permission form as roboticist multiple times to help me do my job, and in many cases has causes interesting situations crop up as people oppose or support it. I fully support giving IAA more teeth, they already have injunction authority, but I think merging HoP and IAA via removing IAA's duty's (One line about how they resolve conflicts is just plain removal, a real merge is when they merge responsibilities). I have seen many IAAs help others with IRs or dealing with situations when their command fails them. Another point, just like HoP, IAA is a role that relies on the player's creativity much more than other roles, and I feel people need to accept that paperwork is sometimes necessary, as is any company, we should not remove a role just because people do not like paperwork/following regs and directives. -1

I understand that we acquiesce to efficiency instead of realism for some things, but I feel that might be stretching it, how do we explain ICly that the hudpatch somehow protects the other eye? If we say its wired to the other one as well, how do we explain that you can remove it? There is jsut no feasible IC way for us to explain this. -1

I personally vote extended because I like being not aware of what antag round it is, and overall many people who vote secret do so because do not want extended. I feel we should let the majority speak up by having extended have a smaller ratio of happening, instead of a vocal minority that prefer sextended. (Not that sextended is bad of course, just that most do not vote for secret for that). +1

@Jupiter Storm Arrow already addressed what I was going to say to what you said regarding head's involvement. (I was almost done when Arrow replied, dang it Arrow ? ) However, this policy suggestion should be considered a wake-up call to Head of Staff, I recommend urging them OOCly and ICly when cross-departmental issues occur, as they are the ones responsible and the most capable of dealing with them.

1. The suggested "duty" of RnD to respond to all miner gear requests when they use paperwork is already a thing, if a scientist denies it for no reason that is grounds for neglect 2. The same can be said above for mining, if they do not provide materials without a good reason (inexperience is a excuse), that is also grounds for neglect 3. Timed quotas are never a good thing, heads can make them, but I feel that making a reg or directive forcing quotas are overall a bad idea. 4. HoP and IAA are people who are here to deal with this exact situation, talk to them. 5. It is up to the players to cooperate with each other and go cross-department, not more rules for sec to have to hound mining and science over. Overall, I feel no change is needed, it is up to the player base to deal with this problem, not a directive or reg. (CCIA Notices would not be sufficient)

To help with context, here are the rules I believe would relate to these situations.

Directive 11 Although not explicitly stated, command is usually the ones responsible for keeping the crew informed and determining what is too hazardous to be made public. However this does not discredit the role of the journalist, I am just saying that if you report anything you shouldn't which threatens crew due to this drone, directive 11 will not save you.

@Zundy It could either replace the command report paper or be something that is printed alongside it. IAA should also get it printed to them at their request consoles.

The paper would not list the actions, only if they have actions or notes in the first place. See above A better notice would be "This data is at the time of this document's creation, please check records for any subsequent crew members." Basically, this paper will allow command to know immediately who has CCIA actions or notes at the start of the shift, bypassing the need to search the records for every single crew member to see if they have any active actions. The list will allow them to instead check everyone on the list and note what their actions are, allowing them to easily tell security or other applicable personnel what they need to know to help enforce the action.

Simply put, this idea is to have a paper spawn for command and IAA which lists crewmembers who have CCIA actions and/or notes that are on for that shift. This will allow for easier enforcement of CCIA injunctions and allow for easy list of all personnel they will need to watch without having to look through every record.

Actually, this regulation is unique in the sense that being charged with this is with the head's discretion. Of course major ones may be charged by sec, but if there is a head either they are report it themselves or sec runs it through the head. The RD in this told security to arrest him for neglect, so security was in a sense bound to charge him due to the RD. As such, the RD is the one who should be responsible for the charge.

@VTCobaltblood robotics should prob also have swipe access, since they can fix it and jazz. I think this is a good idea, although I do not see how this relate to directive 11.

Let me explain: Lets say we do give chef the account access, but what about the bartenders? They also need money to buy supplies! So they will try to get it by extension. Lets say we apply the logic to how chef was implemented and give the bartender access as well, but what about hydroponicists/gardeners? They also need money to buy supplies! Basically, I am saying that if we give chef the account credentials, why shouldn't we also give it to the others? Not to mention only heads have account details (I am including QM as head), and I feel we should keep that precedent. Why would NanoTrasen trust some chef with a large company account? Sidenote: please edit your title and main suggestion post to reflect that service account is the actual account, to prevent further confusion. (I am not judging this suggestion based on that error, just so we all stay on the same page of what account is affected).

Neglect of Duty

1. Only heads (QM is close enough, as head of supply) should have access to an account, the chef can easily ask the Captain or HoP for access 2. Chef is in the service department, and should get the service account, not the main station account. Overall, this will cause a slippery slope which would lead to everyone in the service department getting the account, which will only serve to make the HoP have even less to do. -1