Bear

After reviewing the complaint, Campin and I have decided to uphold the original decision by Loorey and leave the strike in place. While I understand you had a suggestion in there that does respond to the original post that does accept ooc responses, it's hard to read it as anything other than a "meme post" when it's a singular line which is mostly a joke then a serious reply. It was the only one of it's kind on the thread which was otherwise a serious post attempting to garner meaningful feedback both in and out of character. We encourage people to interact with the forums, but effort should be put into the post beyond a one liner joke. Unless there is anything else I will close this in around 24 hours.

I will be handling this with @CampinKiller @Loorey do you have anything you would like to add in response?

I have put Louise on trial, this will last until the complete of the 3 IR's.

Alright after reviewing the case I have a few questions real quick @TonesofBones: So we know that the decision to keep Bava barred from the role of Hangar Technician role is what is being contested after being caught in her IR for selling the cocaine. Just to clarify: You discussed with NM about having her become a machinist which was ruled as just fine by the CCIA team leaving you the option of either adjusting/retconning Bava's education to allow her to take up the role upon completion of your character's rehab. Or the long route of working through your character going to school to eventually get the role. I assume then that retconning your char's previous education as well as mining or other beginner/no education roles on the station is a no go for you then?

Hello, I'll look over this with Mel once she wakes and we will go over the case together as well as the agent's rationale. She will make the final decision on the case. I do however, want to take a moment to address point 2 and 3 on your contest. 2) The SCC does hire criminals, yes. However, this has no bearing on the punishment system in place after characters are hired. Terminations/removals are not appealable this is a ruling that was put in place a few years ago as it just doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things. 3) This is irrelevant. If the megacorps have given your character a punishment/removal from a position, they have just as easily replaced your character in said role. Remember, these entities span across massive lengths. Characters that are removed are seen as more of a liability then anything else. With that out of the way, that leaves point 1 still to address. I'll review your case from start to finish with Mel and she may have questions for yourself or the handling Agent

To piggyback on this, I want to talk about handling The Right Way to tackle a department. The reality is there are many, many different ways to play the game, but unless you are playing a command member you shouldn't be trying to limit another player's approach. We may know our best way to play but that may not work for others, or we may in fact know The Meta when it comes to a certain department. Other players may not be that far in their journey. It's okay to try and teach. It's okay to complain, and then even take an issue to command or if that fails, an IR. But what we cannot do is harass another player through the round with unrealistic expectations, overstep into different job lanes, or make up situations to validate our want to place control on the department/round even if it is with the best outcome in mind. If someone is doing poorly, and/or not taking feedback or teaching from proper channels then you should ahelp if it's obviously in bad faith, dangerous, or if you just have questions on how to approach a confrontation/disagreement.

I would like to clarify on this, as I read through everything. These characters have been mentioned multiple times, but haven't been listed in the initial complaint. Are you saying they were also just as involved or were the reasoning behind your actions? I'm still confused as to why the head of security was reached out to in the first place. Can you guys elaborate on that? @CoolSortieBro @Sparta9001 and @ASmallCuteCat , if your characters were involved could you weigh in as well? Thanks.

I will be taking this player complaint along with the trial Maxspells, give me a day or so. We will be asking multiple questions soon.

The Medical ban is from Wyickedcybs.

Ban lifted

I'm afraid right now I have no interest in adjusting the uniform regulations which are already highly permissive for a workplace environment. It would be a bad look from the corporate side of things. IPCs will be required to wear at minimum, a shirt and some version of shorts/pants. Vote for dismissal.

Can't create an SoP for a single game mode and I would be wary about creating such an SoP for other existing game modes, or canon encounters. It could be disguised as one by an auto-populated round start Central Command update announcement, however, and I would support that if that route was pursued. That said, staff is talking about another route in the background.

A few points that need to be considered here. The start of an Odessey round should indeed be open to anyone who wants to go. However. A lot of this is dependent on the story teller and the theme that is being set for the round. If we are going to blank check away teams then we need to check the Story teller's escalation at round start to ensure those who have no real business going aren't barred by things like logic, or check the storyteller's ability to have existential threats in general and reduce their impact. The latter is worse, in my opinion as dramatic risks and so on can make for good rounds. So the former is likely the best route to have people start off "slow" so anyone who wants to get involved can get down there before things pop off. For instance with reasonability as you said, I agree. However, that's a hard thing to interpret as everyone has different thresholds. It makes little sense to send a cook down to a site with crazy characters in possession of a WMD threatening to detonate it on site. Or a janitor volunteering to go down to the black kois outbreak and help clean up? If anything that borderlines LRP for the characters wanting to go down anyways. But can you blame them for wanting to be involved with the round instead of being force to sit on the ship with no engagement in a semi-extended round? But if its an 1:30 in, then it's the consequence of late joining and there realistically isn't that long until the potential crew transfer comes along. Once these finer lines are considered by the relevant head staff, the guidelines to allow players to get down there should likely be added into the round description. As CCIA, we could make some sort of rotating announcement, but it's an announcement that would be required to only cycle on the odessy and I do not know how doable that is. Therefor it would likely be easier to make it as something that populates with the round start. I'd advise whatever round announcement starts out, icly asks the horizon to set up an outpost on site asking for any and all volunteers,giving all departments a reason to go down before the round really starts off. As this would be the easiest fix in my opinion. Lastly I'd make a small bit about let's ease off on language of "whitelist strip" ect. These are very serious topics, and policy suggestions really aren't the means in which they operate. Save that for the relevant WL team. If you notice a trend, document it, and take it to them. If you are seeing unreasonable behaviour in round that goes against the spirit of the round, ahelp it. Just because it makes sense 100% ic doesn't negate the obligation for reasonable deniability/detachment from the most logical course. We will guide unreasonable command if we're made aware of situations, even if it's not necessarily "rule breaking".

Alright so I've let this sit for about a week as well as reading the funny posts about CCIA in serious discussion and elsewhere. I'm going to address the main topics/themes as best I am able to, but I may not address everyone's individual points here. I will be direct, and it may come across as dismissive, but it is not a personal attack against anyone here. First there is a common misconception about the point of an IR and being upset about losing control of player agency in the course of your story. First and foremost, the point of an IR is to help enforce the standards of the setting from the IC standpoint and expectation of play on the server. It is a form of moderation from the server's in character standpoint, not the out of character standpoint with rules. We try to encourage RP and alternative solutions beyond "you cannot play for a week" or "you're fired" but at the end of the day consequences are just that. Consequences. The IR is one of the CCIA's tools to enforce character accountability and IC standards. I understand people may not like this. But it is about the community's health, not one individual player groups' story. Now why does this matter? Why can't command or the player of the character set their consequences? Frankly put it is to ensure there is some measure of consistency and that it is realistic for the setting and enforced by staff from selected teams. The general playerbase is not trusted with having enforceable consequences and never will be. If you wish to do so you may apply to be staff to either the Lore team, OOC moderation, or the CCIA. Does this discourage canon conflict RP? It can. An example was listed about a bar fight already having stacked consequences. Typically speaking, once a charge is applied, we do not pursue it further unless it is a repeat offense of significance or the end of around occurred and charges/investigations were not able to happen. The team is not and never has been out to get people, we avoid double dipping. Unless the situation is exceptional, if it was charged in round (or realistically could have been, more than a few 'petty IRs' have been filtered this way) and is not a repeat situation, we likely close the IR. To be clear, we want this to be handled in round if at all possible. But it must be remembered that you are an employee at your workplace. Situations like this would cost you your job in any realistic setting. Again, actions have consequences. Now where is all this going? Well, let's be real, IR's are not entirely fun processes', we know. They can be time consuming because we want it on the server. It's not fun to sit in a round and essentially recant your story of events and why. So why do we do it? Your perspective matters. Also, when you interview on the server your record of account is recorded and stored by the server. Discord is not reliable in this regard. Things can be edited or lost with time very easily for a staff complaint down the road. You have a chance to air your side of things and walk us through (as your character) the rationale that lead you to this point. These decisions can be incredibly minor to something as simple as, a charge was applied to something incredibly drastic such as (and quite rarely) character termination. Rushing these and not weighting things properly would end in poor results. Along with the time constraints people have brought up the issue with lying. As a reminder, you can lie to protect yourself. You cannot lie about others, but you can decline to answer. Why is this in place? Without referencing specific events, this rule was put in place to protect players from coordinated IC lies that could and would affect your character very poorly. It, like cameras, is a limitation of the gameplay setting. To address the comment about weaponized IR's. Could it be made by someone with the intent to 'get you'? Sure. But at the end of the day your character is either in breach of their contract/regulations or they are not. Petty IR's such as someone stole my sweetroll but I did not report it to security and here is a vague image of a text from them saying "ha ha suck it nerd" are going to be binned. The filer has no control over the IR once it is filed. It is then up to the relative staff team to pursue it or drop it. I have never been against reworking the IR process, but this is a discussion that is several years old at this point with no viable alternative that continues to serve the purpose of the IR's function in a realistic manner. One bit I did take away from this that was found to be an interesting concept was HR sit downs between disgruntled employees. I will say this now group interviews won't happen, they do not make sense. Along with this, in character intimidation due to friendships, fears, or other forms of ostracization as a repercussion are counterproductive to the point of the IR. That said, an additional conflict resolution session may be something that could be offered as an alternative to, or with, the standard punishments. I will discuss this with my team, and it will likely be an optional offering we may consider. As for the matter of transparency, I will say, the IR process has been in the process of being transcribed to an easy to read breakdown for the wiki for some time before this discussion began. You can also DM me at any point with questions related to the CCIA. That said, our punishments are often situational, proportional, and discussed by the agents before final resolution. They are not easy to codify as no two situations are typically alike instead they follow previous precedents/examples and the spirit of the CCIA. I also want to say now the team's discussions/debates/ and what was considered or not considered will never be public, just like your ooc tickets are not either. The oversight for the CCIA agents (Myself, Admin liaisons, and finally the Headmin) are the ones who moderate the team's actions from the OOC standpoint. If you want to make sure about something after your IR is closed you can DM me or an admin liaison (currently Campin as well as the headmin Mel) with any concerns/questions. I want everyone to remember you have 3 avenues to pursue if you do not agree or like your outcome. First and foremost is a staff complaint. Myself and the headmin will look at the records and see if all the steps were taken by the agent, if all appropriate parties were interviewed, and if the outcome is logical. The Headmin/Liaison reviewing this has the only/final say on the outcome of the ruling. You do not need to feel bad about staff complaining an IR, if you think it was not handled well, I actively encourage you to. The other two are appeals and requests for clemency. Clemency has a very low bar for acceptance. If your character is willing to admit they did wrong, apologize, and/or hold themselves accountable it is more than likely we will reduce your IC punishment. We are here to play a game. If being reassigned to janitorial is that hard on you, we get it. Understand repeat offenses and CCIA engagements (For the same character, not the player) may reduce your chances here. Next is appeals. You can appeal the decision and your logic as to why. A new agent or myself will take a look at it and review to either agree with or overturn the previous decision. This is essentially an IC staff complaint on the decision. I have the final say on appeals/clemency IC. With all of this said. I do not see any foreseeable or sensible changes to the IR structure save for the potential addition of group hash out sessions as part of the resolutions. I thank everyone for their feedback regardless, I know I didn't get to every point raised but I feel the spirit of the suggestion has been addressed, I understand this is not to everyone's liking but my DM's are always open for further dialogue. What that in mind I am -1'ing/Voting for Dismissal an IR rework at this time.

This trial was passed some time ago.. nobody say anything.