Skull132

The only way is if I add an exception, so that the item uses an array of names. But even then, the array needs to remain predefined. So, short answer: no.

About the IAA involvement, I'm currently managing this with a new directive that's being drafted. Hopefully ready for presentation at the end of this week. Should give them clear power over investigations.

I will preface this with one fact. Instead of appealing, as I suggested you should originally, you dodged the ban via a little oversight that we had left in our ban code. One that was fixed quite recently. Since then, I do believe you logged 4 automatic bans on alternate ckeys as a result. Note at that at least 1 of those has the hallmark of you actually trying to dodge the ban, by a measure greater than simply remaking an account. Now. In the small amount of time that you did manage to slip by the ban system, you managed to get yourself a note for being terribly argumentative over the issue of whether or not you should be feeding monkeycubes to people as a non-antagonist. The point Tablespoon was trying to make was quite simple: going around, offering people monkey cubes as a scientist under the guise of, "They are cookies harmless" or whatever else is quite god damn chucklefucky. Quite similar to a chemist offering mislabeled pills filled with spacedrugs or something like that for no good reason. The latter usually ends with a job ban. With this in mind, why should we unban you?

Something for review. Since my ideallistic goal is to have the ground map finished within the next 3 months (late SEP at its latest), I don't think I'd be willing to feed this to myself or Scopes (I have priorities on the Biologist position, plus oddities; Scopes on maintenance and the ground map). However, a topic that was echoed on OOC a few days ago was rovers. Code is basically the same, with a few exceptions (and I know where to fetch it: Paradise). So, to pull the lazy thoughts together: I am not willing to commit the official resources we have to unfuck, balance and otherwise manage these at this time.

Two and a half weeks later, here's the update. We have ran a soft-implementation of the position. It is currently an alternate title for Genetics, with only a small selection of tools at their disposal. The completed pulls can be reviewed here. There is detailed information on both of them about what they do, include, or update. Now, this has mainly been me laying the groundwork. Now we get to move forward. If you expand the milestone, you'll see my initial draft of how I want this to move. Basically, with the surgery and simple implementation in place, we can start expanding. What are we expanding on? Organs! We want them to have shit to mess with! In this case, we want them to have curious things to pull out of chest cavities, brains, etcetera. And ways to fuck around with them. The first on my list to do is the Skrell organ of telepathic ERP. This is my next large project (I'll probably be kidnapping Cres and Tool for this, so that I have lore oversight as required), with secondaries popping up as I get bored/burnt out. Once it is in, we'll see further. And just, "What is further?" you might ask? Well, gentlemen. Frankenmonsters. More organ generation/modification. Surgery on vital organs without killing the patient. I'll report back and gather ideas once the Skrell organ of telepathic ERP and doom is done! Night!

Cassie's experience pretty much mirrors mine with the bar, both as a bartender and as a patron (ingame, anyways). Also as a doctor, I might add.

Pretty much this.

Please fill this in triplicate, and we will review the incident:

GOON actually has a use for them: they have an expansive amount of extra content that can be reached with the pods the help of the pods. We do not. They would only serve a purpose in clearing out space fish, drones, or duking it out with nukeops. This means that we have no need for them, and that adding them would create a need for them. which isn't necessarily bad. But how adversly would it affect other mechanics already at play?

Only steps #1, #2 and #7 are reasonable for developers to tackle. The rest is up to heads of staff, or just completely nonsensical.

Apparently asking Security to be reasonable is like asking a wall to stop standing where it is. Gentlemen, when can we ram this singular idea through your skulls: "Temper the corporate regulations with reason." And I am going to get into specifics here, so you'll pardon the call-out. But if an atmostech is walking around with a fire-axe on his back, you have to acknowledge the following facts: They have access to it The weapon is not raised nor presented in a threatening manner You do not know why they might or might not need it If you immediately jump and gank that poor motherfucker because "OH MY GOD CONTRABAND" then you are failing at your job. Ask them why they have it. Watch them for any hostile movements (unsheathing of the weapon). Assess the answer they give you. - If legit, put out a notice for all of sec, so he doesn't run into someone else - If not legit, politely and reasonably ask them to return the weapon React only if the suspect creates a situation that poses an immediate threat to the well-being of you, themselves, or a third party. Otherwise, keep your weapons stowed, and their hands out of cuffs.

Then you would be removing one very key gathering point. The bar would effectively become useless.

You're trying to dissect an age old dilemma. As I outlined in my initial two blurbs, Captain can make you follow just about any order. You have the opportunity to dismiss them of command, should the situation call for it, but you wouldn't do this based on a singular case or a singular order. Nor would you do this during a critical situation, unless absoloutely warranted. See, I've already got about 3 situational clauses in my paragraph. This discussion is highly dependent on the situation and the players in that situation. Bracing for every single potential what-if is impossible. It is better to arm yourself with the judgement required to know when to follow a misguided order, or when to argue against one. It also helps if you know how to argue against one, as doing it improperly is mutiny, where as doing it properly is reporting an officer damaging to the Corporation.

If neither side is clearly and irrevocably in the wrong with their calls, then yes, the higher authority figure dictates movement.

I think you pretty much answered this question yourself, no? The thing is, if don't have time, then the objective truth flies out of the window until the situation is resolved. This usually applies for code blue worthy situations or higher. At that point, you go into the territory of, "My order is literally the law, and I can fuck you up if you choose to disobey it, and try to throw the book at me instead of following my orders." The orders issued in this vain are never questioned in the middle of a situation (unless they go into the completely inhumane territory), but are instead reviewed afterwards. Punishment, if required, is then issued after the fact. Now, if you have time, however. Your orders still have a lot of weight to them, but there's more space to question them and review them. If you have time, the Captain is required to review the matter with the security team. He isn't required to agree with them, oh no, but he is required to involve them, and to give them a proper chance of explaining their point of view (as opposed to just jumping over this stage and making a conscience call in the previously noted, higher risk situation). The hopeful end state is an agreement on how to proceed, a consensus (which isn't a term that the militaristic hierarchy lacks familiarity with, contrary to your belief), or an agreement to disagree.

I'll probably work on this after I've managed the Biologist position's initial conception tomorrow. So, like 2-3 days from now, hopefullys.

The way I perceive it. This is mostly for FFrances. If an individual has issues along these lines, then one way attempt to counter is to remove their ability to play any roles of authority. Force them to be in positions that are lower in the foodchain to see if an understanding of humility can help (because, part of the issue here is the lack of humility). The second preferred alternative was to give him a time out to cool off and think about it, specially considering a few factors that were raised to me that I would rather not levy here, out of respect for the man in question. And for point two, if you imagine me as rolling up and going all, "Yo dawg, you're banned," then you're grossly mistaken. There was a 3 hour (if memory serves, anyways) discussion between myself and Delta, ending with the decision. You know how I work: identify an issue, raise the issue, discuss the issue, review potential solutions (in this case three), pick one and execute. Then run adjustment and re-engage as necessary.

Ultimately, the problem in question is solvable.

Actually, really easy to bypass that one. Inform the prisoner. Give him options: "Dooo you want a tracking implant for the duration of the investigation, do you want to wait it out, do you want an officer escorting you?" Give him the choices, see what he does.

What his butt said. If you want to arrest someone for having a pink screwdriver out of a hacked vending machine, just because it's non-standard. Then you're doing something wrong. In my mind, in my personal world whenever I run as hoss or Captain and deal with these issues, contraband is either an item that can be used for clearly malicious intent (stun gloves, weapons, etcetera), or something that they really are not suppose to have (like an assistant walking around with AI boards or some shit). If it's anything other than that, then why exactly are you making a fuss of it? Sec needs to learn reasonable enforcement, and remove the rod just about all of them have embedded up their arse about regulation. "Dude hopped a counter and is serving drinks in the bar!" "Tase him down! Gogogo!" "....How about we just politely ask him to leave, and give him a warning. How about that?" You are there to maintain order. Not to be a petty.

Okay. Now that we're actually back on topic. Does anyone have any issue with what I posted here and here?

I would appreciate a less muddled question. Actually, I would appreciate it if you re-read my post, as you're committing the same logical fallacy I've been trying to chase down this entire day. The first case is teetering towards pardoning, but mostly concerns the executive authority of the captain. The second case is headed towards wrongful imprisonment, and has little or nothing to do with the former. Technically, yes. It is then up to Command Staff or IA to determine whether or not such an order was valid. If found not valid, that is to say: there was no good reason for issuing it, then he can be brought in for overstepping his authority. Let's clarify two things before proceeding: "Minimum time" is actually "suggested penalties". The rest is "Additional penalties". Suggested penalties, or lower, can be applied as necessary, by any member of security staff. Additional penalties require, according to corporate regulation, higher authority for appliance. What's more, I don't think Corporate Regulation actually talks about any circumstances where abnormal timers may be applied. As such, if there is a case of anyone sitting in for something higher than the cumulative sum of the applicable "Suggested Penalties", then they are wrongfully imprisoned. As such, the member of security who conducted the brigging is to be held accountable for such an offence, and the charge can be nulled or (more preferably) simply reset to the normal timer (if the normal timer is already elapsed, then simply released).

That'll make people not trust it, though. The entire system would exist to create trust. "This guy is typing, I am trusting him to be typing, so I'll wait a bit." If we make it toggleable, then even if it's not abused, people will lack trust in it. That's, unfortunately, how things go. So it should be automagical.

Temper this with actual legitimate reason. If they have like a hacked softdrink that doesn't really do anything to anyone, then you should probably just let them be.

The thing about my wording is, I am very hesitant to outright say, "Yes, you can go over someone's head because you outrank them." That is mainly due to the fact that people are shits, and lack understanding of how command actually works. But, hey, since we want to be treated like adults: The Captain has overriding authority with every single decision, as long as his decision falls in line with Corporate Regulation and the Station Directives (during standard operation). During non-standard operation, the decisions made by the Captain do not have to fall in line with Corporate Regulation and the Station Directives. In either case, the actions of the Captain are reviewed afterwards. That is to say: His orders cannot be overturned once issued. Any review of his orders is to be conducted after their execution, unless the order is an outright and clear violation of Corporate Regulation or Station Directives on code green. On code blue or higher, orders are to be followed without question between receipt and execution. If found guilty by an investigative party (IAA or CC), then they are punished after the fact. Not during. But I would like to still remain an advocate to the side of, "Hey, I should trust my HoS, and he should trust me!"