tzeneth

Question: why is the position called "Executive Officer" when they are not, in-fact, the executive officer which is the second-in-command? That seems confusing as all heck if someone joins the server, the captain is absent and the person sporting the title of what is traditionally the "second-in-command" is in fact, not the second-in-command.

Reporting Personnel: Flint Diamond Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Independent Reporter (Suspended) Game ID: cdF-aGhq Personnel Involved: Maxwell Byrne, Investigator (Suspended): Offender Leona Raszeur, Security Officer (Suspended): Offender Qaal Nramala, Head of Personnel: Offender Mahara Stokov, Chief Medical Officer: Offender Other security officers present but did nothing: Other Secondary Witnesses: Time of Incident: Not sure. Real Time: ~10-11pm PDT 8/22/21 Location of Incident: Security Lobby Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [X] - Neglect of Duty [ ] - Harassment [X] - Assault [X] - Misconduct [X] - Other: Violation of Privacy Laws, Exceeding Official Powers Overview of the Incident: The event occurred in essentially two parts with a brief afterward of me clarifying some things. The event began when I learned at the bar that two officers had been drinking on duty. I do not remember exactly who I followed but I did end up in the security lobby. Around that time I began my first recording. I will admit, no one was aware I was recording. There I saw a passed out Officer Leona Raszeur on the ground. As this was a public area, I took a photo for the obvious story this was going to be that I would be able to publish as an independent journalist. Dr. Mahara Stokov, the Chief Medical Officer, then asked for the photograph (1:24 of Recording 1). I attempted to explain we were in a public area and that makes it so there is a lack of an expectation of privacy (1:40 Recording 1). I then learned Officer Raszeur had suffered from SSD rather than passing out due to alcohol consumption when Dr. Stokov mentioned it (2:11 Recording 1). I indicated that I had thought Officer Raszeur had passed out drunk within the recording (2:24 Recording 1). Although, due to my angle, I accidentally misgendered Officer Raszeur and apologize for that. I am not a medical expert and take the opinion of Dr. Stokov as fact with regards to the SSD state rather than the officer being passed out due to alcohol consumption. I then reiterate the other reason I had taken the picture was that Officer Raszeur was smoking in the Security Lobby where a clear no smoking sign was present (2:39 Recording 1). I ultimately decided to hand over the photo around this point as I felt if I refused, I would potentially be arrested and removed instead of being able to hear the full story. Dr. Stokov then, mind you this is all occurring in the Security Lobby which is accessible by anyone and can be heard from the main hall outside, starts talking about the drinking on duty incident. I kind of feel this should be taken care of in a private setting, instead of straight in front of an independent, investigative reporter standing in a public area. Qaal Nramala, the Head of Personnel, was also present and proceeded to state, "Not to expose you in front of everyone, Leo, but it says here you are forbidden from drinking on duty." (4:32 Recording 1). The statement shows both knowledge and intent to their Violation of Privacy Laws and doing it in a public area, very likely to be overheard by any passerby or the Independent, Investigative Reporter standing in the room. The two heads of staff proceed to then continue tearing into and dressing down Officer Raszeur and Investigator Maxwell Byrne. At around 7:32-7:37 into the recording, the two Heads left the Security Lobby. At that point, cognizant of the fact that the Chief Medical Officer had gotten on my case for taking a picture without consent before, I asked to take Officer Raszeur's picture (7:48 Recording 1). At this point, Investigator Byrne became aggressive. Not only was Investigator Byrne making comments about me needing to leave "Unless you'd like to see me get suspended twice." (8:22 Recording 1), he was moving physically closer to me in a threatening manner. Officer Raszeur also took a threatening demeanor when asking about the previous photograph I had already given to Dr. Stokov. At that point I reiterated I would still remain there and not be threatened by an officer (9:51 Recording 1). Investigator Byrne then made the comment, "Show me a recording then. Of my threatening." At that point, I remembered I had been recording the conversation. As I expected a large lull, I left and stashed my recording in my locked briefcase in my office and grabbed a new recorder so the record would not be as muddy due to how long the first recording would likely be. I then returned with a second recorder that began recording as I stepped in. This recording is a little more muddy as it seems to have picked up a conversation going on in the main hall outside of the Security Lobby as well as the conversation inside. Although this does put more towards the evidence of who all could hear the conversations occurring in the Security Lobby beyond just who was present. Detective Byrne then continue to make comments at my expense and include a threat of deportation based on me being an independent reporter (1:47 and 2:38 Recording 2). Another officer I did not get in my notes and don't recognize the voice of stated, "Well, tell us who threatened you, we'll be certain to investigate thourghly." (1:48 Recording 2). Considering the context, it's clear who I am referring to as threatening me. Especially with the aggressive attitude. A short time later, Dr. Stokov and Ms. Nramala returned. Out of nowhere, Ms. Nramala declares, "You three, your IDs." (3:43 Recording 2). My confusion is clearly expressed when I realized she might be referring to me by me asking for clarification, "Me included?" (4:00 Recording 2). I hand over my ID as I am receiving a direct order from the Head of Personnel, my superior. My confusion is clearly evident in that I ask, "And the reasonf or my suspension?" (4:48 Recording 2). Ms. Nramala did not answer my question at that time, as indicated by the recording. I then followed Dr. Stokov out and attempt to ask her why I was suspended (6:47 Recording 2). Dr. Stokov only indicated, "That would be a question forrr the head of perrsonnel." (7:03 Recording 2). At that point I headed to my office to attempt to retrieve my first recording so I would have it for my record. I learned that my suspension removed my ability to enter my office. At that point, I had already sent a message to the Head of Personnel asking why I had been suspended by private message. I did not receive a response and attempted to go by the Head of Personnel office but it appeared she was busy. After waiting some time, I left and then returned some time later. I was then able to meet with her, request access to my office, retrieve my secure briefcase with Recording 1 inside, and ask Ms. Nramala why I had been suspended. She indicated that the investigator had claimed I had threatened him. This was the first I was learning about it. She did not discuss the incident with me, she could not have performed a thorough investigation without at least talking with me, nor did she indicate she had performed her own investigation, and she did not indicate anyone within security had performed some type of investigation. Ms. Nramala did not directly name him but I took it that she meant Investigator Byrne was my accuser. At that point I left to go to the library to look over my records and confirm what I had. At that time I confirmed my secure briefcase had not been tampered with and that the recording device was still inside. It is with this reasonable degree of certainty that I can confirm that the recordings have not been tampered with and were either in my possession or reasonably secure such that they could not have been tampered with. As for the issues involved in this case, there are many. First, we have the threats from Investigator Bryne. Although, Officer Raszeur's demeanor was aggressive and did not contribute any to attempts of deescalation of the aggressiveness of Investigator Byrne. I would also note the multiple officers that were present and did not take any steps to either deescalate Investigator Bryne's actions nor decide to add i103 Weak Assault, to the list of charges against Investigator Byrne. Considering how aggressive Investigator Byrne was, he could have easily decided to escalate or snap and attack me. This was especially clear when Investigator Byrne moved toward me and was face to face with me. Investigator Byrne's actions are clearly violations of i103 Weak Assault and should have been punished. I leave it up to CCIA in determining the extent of Officer Raszeur's culpability beyond whatever punishment they received for the previous drinking on duty. Dr. Stokov is probably the cleanest of all involved in this incident. My only complaint against her is that she have held the conversation in a private area instead of the Security Lobby. Unless something is revealed during the investigation, I would just give her a reminder that conversations like the dressing down of subordinates should probably happen in private areas. Ms. Nramala, in contrast, is not only guilty of what Dr. Stokov is, with having the conversations in a public area, she specifically stated something from Officer Raszeur's private records, knowingly, into the public. A clear breach of i118 Violation of Privacy Laws. On top of that, Ms. Nramala then proceeded to suspend me based, as she represented to me, the sole statement of an investigator who was being suspended for drinking on duty. Further, it was not her job or duty to take action with regards to a potential criminal offense. If true, I would have been guilty of i103 Weak Assault. The punishment for a first time offense is brig time. Only a second offense leads to the possibility of a demotion. Based off Dr. Stokov's lack of knowledge for why I was suspended, Ms. Nramala must have taken this action unilaterally and not as a Captain equivalent action based on a vote of the Heads of Staff. Thus, the Head of Personnel was taking unilateral action in an area reserved for security's sphere of influence. Thus, Ms. Nramala breached i214 Exceeding Official Powers in unilaterally acting to declare me guilty of a crime without an investigation. Further, even if it was determined Ms. Nramala acted within her official powers by choosing to suspend me, by performing no investigation or taking any steps to prevent me being punished wrongly, Ms. Nramala breached i206 Neglect of Duty. Ms. Nramala had a duty to do a competent investigation or make sure a competent investigation was done. Considering I was never questioned about the incident, no "competent" investigation could have occurred. Submitted Evidence: Attached are copies of the recordings and their transcripts. I have kept additional copies for my own records in multiple locations. Recording 1 Recording 2 Would you like to be personally interviewed?: [X] - Yes [ ] - No Did you report it to a Head of Staff or a superior? If so, who? If not, why?: Heads of staff and my superior were involved in the incident. Actions taken: See overview of incident as Heads of Staff were involved and no Captain was on shift. Additional Notes: I have decided, for the better part of discretion and my continued ability to operate on Nanotrasen stations, to reach out to your department to resolve this instead of publishing this story. I would also apologize if I broke any laws with regards to recording. I don't believe I have because I believe Tau Ceti is a one-party consent setting but if I am wrong, I apologize and will pay the relevant fines involved in that. (OOC: I can't find anywhere in the rules, the wiki, or elsewhere what the private citizen recording conversation laws are. So, I'm going with the defense my character believes Tau Ceti is a one-party consent area rather than a two-party consent territory. And if you need me to explain those, I can.)

Honestly this is kind of how I preferred it. I had a few characters who were kind of designed around "Nanotrasen is baseline" where one is a "Nanotrasen is best" and another is, "You hire me because my company is quality, not like shoddy Nanotrasen!" Kind of cuts into the latter and the joke doesn't land as much when there is no baseline company but I can live with that. My other concern along these lines is barrier to entry. Not only are you adding the barrier that already exists for base lore but now a person needs to know pretty much every corporation to create a character because they need to know the corporations for the department they want to play, figure out which might work best. I mean, I created a lot of generic dudes where I had only skimmed the wiki when I started playing because I didn't want to invest the time if I didn't gel with the server. Now I'm joining the server and going, "Why can't I work in this department" or more likely, "Man there aren't a lot of roles on this server."

I know you said you're working on the lore but how are department transfers going to work when you have a bunch of different companies? I know I had a character who went through a traumatic event and basically I had him "go back to school" and transfer departments because of that event. Are characters who legitimately might transfer going to have to figure out a reason to not only transfer departments but companies if the department they want doesn't have the company they currently work for?

Reporting Personnel: Samuel Spade Job Title of Reporting Personnel: Detective Game ID: b2B-aui5 Personnel Involved: (Name, Job Title: Offender/Witness/Other) - Hayley Pandit (Nurse) Offender - Sam Leda (Medical Doctor) Offender - Joseph Lock (Head of Security) Witness Time of Incident: Essentially the entire shift. Real Time: ~7:30-10pm PDT 8/5/19 Location of Incident: Medical Nature of Incident: [ ] - Workplace Hazard [ ] - Accident/Injury [ ] - Destruction of Property [X] - Neglect of Duty [ ] - Harassment [ ] - Assault [ ] - Misconduct [ ] - Other _____ (Place an x in the box that applies. If other, replace line and specify.) Overview of the Incident: Early on in the shift there was an issue with the elevator doors and the doors on the surface were open. This led to a few injuries and at least one casualty. I was unaware that our CSI, Kayden Oppenheimer had died during that incident and only learned about his death half-way through the shift when I was asking the security channel if anyone had heard from him because I could not ever remember hearing from him over the security channel. At that time, I learned that he was deceased. This however conflicted with the manifest which listed him as still active. The manifest takes the status of the person directly from the medical records. I confirmed through my own checking of the records at the time, with the access I am permitted as the detective, and saw that he was still listed as active. Thus began my wild goose chase to get the medical department to actually update their records off and on during the shift. The reason I personally was pursuing this was that I knew I and anyone who came after me could potentially be relying upon the records for any investigations or as evidence. I visited multiple times during the shift and asked them to update their records. I knew they were busy from multiple incidents during the shift but there were at least two instances where Hayley Pandit and at least one intern were sitting in the lobby when I requested an update to the medical records. More than once the intern was sitting at the desk, right next to the computer that would update the records. I will also note, that I sent a PDA message to Sam Leda sometime between 2/3 and 3/4 through the shift before the messaging service started having problems to please get someone to properly update the medical records. In every instance I brought up updating the records, I pointed specifically to Kayden Oppenheimer because I could easily check to see if he was ever marked as deceased on the manifest. At some point near the last quarter of the shift, issues with the PDA messaging occurred and I could no longer use it to attempt to communicate with anyone. I discovered this issue when I was attempting to message the Captain to talk about this issue. I will admit that around the time the transfer shuttle was called, either some time before or after, I acted more than a bit unprofessional by venting my frustration on the Security channel. Joseph Lock, then talked to me about going to talk to medical about it. The end of shift occurred around that time, so I am unaware if he had any communications with medical. I also do not know what the status of the Captain was at this time as the manifest listed him as active (although that was already demonstrably unreliable) and I did not have any communications with him or hear anything from him over the security channel. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: There was no active CMO and when I attempted to contact the captain through my PDA, there were issues with the messaging service by that point in the shift. While I did my general complaining, my superior, Joseph Lock, the HoS, mentioned that he was potentially going to have a conversation with them but I am unsure if he did as this conversation occurred near the end of the shift. Actions taken: There was no active CMO at the time and I could not contact the captain privately using the PDA and the captain was not responding to general complaints on the security channel. Joseph Lock did indicate he might communicate with medical but he would not be in the proper chain of command to take action. Additional Notes: I will note that I am understanding of the stress that medical causes and that there were multiple incidents that required their attention. I do not think they should be punished too severely but should be given some type of remedial training to ensure proper medical records are kept or training in getting interns to do that for them. The fact I visited numerous times and saw an intern sitting at the front desk appearing to do nothing other than potentially staring at the personal sensors data, within easy reach of the medical records computers, and no actions were taken when I requested them, with Hayley Pandit also there a couple of those times, indicates to me that the importance of the medical records needs to be hammered home. I luckily did not need to investigate any incidents this shift but if I was called and needed to investigate, the medical records would not be something I could use as reliable evidence. This could also lead me to the wrong conclusions when investigating. If I have a suspect and they were actually injured during the time of the incident, then they have a rock solid alibi and I can move quickly to another, more reasonable suspect instead of spending time following the wrong trail. Further, if they lost a hand earlier in the shift, fingerprint evidence might not be as reliable.

Ah, that's my remembering incorrectly then. I came to this specific section because the git log pull requested both and linked here.

That's incorrect. This is about two access changes which SHOULD be talked about separately. This is a change to EMT and a change to Janitor. One is adding and the other removing access. That's part of the reason the discussion is about who has and doesn't have access because it's a change to two different positions.

Context for me, I don’t and haven’t played paramedics but discovering they don’t have general access surprises me. They should have it. I’m posting more because of the latter change to janitors. The amount of times I’ve seen broken lights never reported, messes that were never reported, or cleanup in the medbay while everyone is busy are many. I may also be influenced by the fact I often play during dead times where there isn’t always an AI or an HoP which means I wouldn’t have easy access to certain messes that happen due to pressure backup in the air scrubbers or any other reason but I think janitors SHOULD have general access. Without general access it means that medical can be in a panic due to needing to deal with chaos and leave a mess everywhere while I can’t get in there to keep it clean, like my job is supposed to, without having one of them come over and let me in. I can also think of other examples that fit. It also means my mute janitor is much less viable (because I could do my job without needing to constantly phone in requests for access) which makes me kind of sad because it’s fun to be the silent cleaner, a person who comes in with a smile and wave while they clean up the messes by the drunk visitors, then go to medical and see that they’re busy and clean up the blood from the madness that happened and then do a tour of the station to check in with the various workers. Maybe I’m just one person who’s niche but I like that character and would be sad to have to change or stop playing them (also it’s kind of funny to see who actually takes sign and who doesn’t).