Frances

These are the situations in which you send an ahelp that you have to get going pronto and have no time to cryo. It doesn't take more than 10-15 seconds to type up a message, and it'd be greatly appreciated. Then we can cryo you if necessary (you can rejoin the round should you come back), or at least know what your head's status is. Running out of charge is excusable, but unless the emergency literally involves someone dying, simply send a few words our way as a heads-up.

Alright, that is actually something I like. Giving IAAs access to the command channel, Y/N? Arguments? Moom's IAA was always super useful to me when playing HoS (they can already advise you about law on the sec channel), and having them work as kind of secretaries/advisers to heads in addition to their regular duties does sound like a very attractive idea.

He is to give us a heads-up if he is to AFK as a head, or put himself in cryo. I added a note to his account. He is to be warned of this on the next incident, and if it happens again after that, his whitelist will be removed.

Pretty much going to agree with Witt here. I'd like to have some more information about the ban (what was said in OOC, were warnings issued?), but you starting off the appeal saying you'll "have the mod's head" if they deleted your post (you post likely didn't send correctly, Witt doesn't have special forum permissions) makes you come off as confrontational, and even if it was meant as a joke, it is decidedly not the attitude to take if you're going to accuse a mod of being disrespectful.

I'd still like to hear more about the specific suicide situation - did Farcry actually communicate information he gained from being a ghost to the other (live) ops?

They have a fax machine. What would you like to see in their office? I believe the coming update will give them a clipboard, but I can't think of anything else that would be needed they don't already have.

Alright, then in this case, two questions: 1. Why would this be a thing? ICly, why employ one role, which can overlook and direct any and all departments, even with limited authority, when it's impossible to assume said role would have the required knowledge to direct anything? 2. OOCly, this requires whitelisting IAAs. If I want to control a bunch of departments that aren't mine, I'll just go captain and offer my assistance (recognizing, obviously, that I'm outmatched by my staff, should I be in a field that is not my area of expertise). How is this any different, other than being more annoying? (Because IAAs go from being neutral third parties to being your ignorant supervisor you can do nothing about.)

You were an engineering borg? Hm. Then I'll wait for Farcry's explanation as to why he fired on you repeatedly, if there was one. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. As for this, the cyanide pills exist for a reason. Suicide must be justified, but I feel like being about to be captured, and interrogated/tortured, before likely being executed anyway, and with another of your fellow operatives having already committed suicide, is more than enough justification to kill yourself. Like yes, there's a lot of things people could do that would create even more roleplay, perhaps at the detriment of personal character choices or logic, but while we strive to find balance between fun and realism, at some point, as we say, the show must go on.

Two things. Firstly, giving players instructions over LOOC isn't necessarily bad. Using information gained as a ghost to help a player (i.e. "there's three players with rifles around the corner") is bad, but teaching them how to do a thing is not bad in itself. It feels to me like Farcry was trying to give BeeGee help regarding his situation and what he was to do in it personally (helping him with a judgement call), nothing else. If you can prove this was used to meta to some extent, then I'll consider it as an actual offense, but otherwise, I fail to see the issue here. Secondly, Farcry didn't fire a single bullet before the arrival of the ERT. There was a ganking nuke ops early on (who killed a quartermaster), but they were talked to and the victim revived. Looking at the logs, I fail to find fault with Farcry's behavior, given that the moment the ERT comes on the station, you've got two heavily armed groups looking to kill the fuck out of each other, and unless the nuke ops managed to amass some leverage by then (hostages), that will likely lead to the entirety of the nuke ops dishing it out against the entirety of the station's armed forces + ERT. And that's fine - there was buildup to the situation, hopefully everyone that's throwing themselves at an armed opponent while having a weapon themselves understands the point of it is to have a fight, and noncombatants shouldn't end up being killed without reason. Provide me proof that there was ganking (or at least more precise directives), and I'll look into that as well. Edit: Looking at the logs, it also turns out that Farcry and BeeGee (the operative Farcry was giving instructions to) had been roleplaying together for most of the round, and the players had decided (semi-oocly, I guess) that it would be amusing for them to have some sort of suicide pact - Farcry's op, having committed suicide, wanted to see BeeGee join him in the same fate (I can assume they were in a similar situation, which left suicide as the only viable option for them). This is honestly more amusing than anything else, and mainly indicative of a player's wish to ensure the roleplay they had began with a friend does come to a satisfying end - definitely not anything I'd consider problematic or deserving of a punishment.

Roleplay?

Taking someone out of the round for 30 minutes, or even being able to bug them for a full 30 minutes over chucklefucking, is a pretty bad thing. Putting a time limit on it hardly changes anything, I don't think this is a power IAAs should have. And before the "but security can brig people" argument gets brought in, brigging is a pretty cut and dry exercise - you look to see if there's been a breach of corporate regulations, and if there is, you stick them in the bin, for more or less the time that's already written down in the book.

Except while we do see a lot of this kind of chucklefucking from IAAs (Mr. Blackafro Demnigguz IAA breaking into the teleporter room and having drunken punch-outs), it's very, very easily jobbanned, and does not justify whitelisting at all. Putting IAA on the whitelist will essentially kill it, as even fewer people will ever consider picking up the job (same reason why AI isn't whitelisted, though the AI has a lot more power). And I think I like the fact that we have a paperwork/RP-oriented job that's not whitelisted. Basically, IAAs can do the heads' dirty work, conduct investigations, then have the heads/Centcom apply justice/demotion/whatever. Also, the IAA office does have a fax machine.

This was actually discussed before. I dug up the thread for you: http://auroraserver.freeforums.net/thread/1247/liaison-officer Basically, the consensus ended up being that that would be too much power for a single position. Remember we're trying to make IAA more interesting here, not create a new job to fix an unrelated problem. That seems absolutely wrong, and whoever told you that was either in the wrong or failed at carrying their point across. While the forms attempt to look official and use a certain level of vocabulary, they should still be clear and concise. If you feel like you have better forms than our current ones (or would like to officialize new ones), head over to the paperwork suggestion thread here: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=182 If your forms are good, there's no reason why they should be thrown out. Even then, that would be rather problematic given IAAs aren't necessarily meant to have any idea how a specific department can be run. Better appoint nobody in charge than somebody who can't do anything, but still serves as an obstruction and someone others need to get approval from. That's heads being flat out bad. The HoP's job is to keep track of paperwork, given they don't have a terribly active department to direct (just the civilian jobs, which generally require less micromanagement). Job reassignments are more than major enough to justify paperwork being done. IAAs aren't whitelisted, and this has a lot of potential for abuse. People with poor decision-making skills, who haven't been cleared for head whitelists, basically abusing the IAA spot to support their personal feuds by suspending staff until they're job-banned.

Shrug, I didn't say you were trying to make a powergrab. I was simply pointing out that's what most of your proposed changes will result in, without necessarily adding fun or relevant gameplay to the position. There's nothing wrong in wanting to open dialogue about a job that's often neglected - if there were a way to make IAAs more interesting to play, I'd like to find out about it too. So leave it for that, or suggest changes which improve the chair RP, not radically change the entire dynamic of Internal Affairs. It's not just about doing paperwork. I usually only make people write forms if they want me to go out of my way to do something non-standard for them (such as requesting approval for weird experiments, or demanding non job-specific equipment), but although you'd expect irl officers to fill in arrest reports for every incident they intervene in, it's unrealistic to ask them to due to the volume of paperwork it would generate OOCly. You can go around interviewing people - which they usually don't mind - or asking to conduct workplace investigations - which might annoy some characters ICly, but does create some very interesting RP. And for paperwork, the things people don't generally like is having to write long paragraphs, or filling the same forms over and over again. But if you create your own forms, and keep them simple and purposeful, people will rarely object to having to fill in a few fields and a signature. No, then that would force everyone to do the annoying paperwork no one likes. Important procedures already need paperwork (e.g. a borging without proper paperwork will result in at the least a manslaughter charge), and the smaller ones are fine without (or with, at the document's emitter's discretion). This happens because there are not enough people whitelisted/wanting to play head roles. Whitelisting the IAA accomplishes nothing in that aspect - if I feel like playing a head, I'm going to join as a head, not as an IAA.

Not legal. Investigative. They're sort of like your job inspector - one thing they actually exist for is conducting inspections of departments, interviews, and ensuring all goes well/regulations are respected. And they exist to solve any conflicts, not just those involving heads - if someone has a complaint, if there's an incident report about a fight, if somebody is getting fired, the IAA has the right to investigate. You can also act as an adviser to heads. Now, to look at the proposed changes, and why I'm against most of them. Except being a head requires expertise and good knowledge of a department - having a single person with the possibility of overlooking any department is a bad idea, both IC-wise and OOCly. IAAs don't conduct direct crime investigations. An IAA shouldn't be able to waltz into evidence and grab whatever they want - they'll have to coordinate with security for that. Unsure about the briefing room, can't really see it hurting, though again, IAAs are barely sec - they're not even under the control of the HoS, afaik. So I think in a way, lack of brig access serves to reinforce that - they shouldn't be in the briefing room, cause it's not explicitly their job to care about security briefings. Different training, different job. That simply makes security training an additional, needless requirement for the job. Space Law is open to interpretation - but they effectively already have that power. Being the experts on corporate regulations (and the closest thing to a lawyer, though they don't behave like one), they should be consulted on matters which fall within gray areas of corporate regs, along with heads (and the warden). Not their job. Why would they need this? As a whole, this post feels to me like an attempt to give IAAs more power in order to make their job "more interesting". However, none of these changes are truly needed - nor do they bring much, all being highly situational. Rather, I feel like many people fail to understand the job of IAAs holistically - which is, to get into everybody's business, keep paperwork on every incident, run inspections, and generally keep the station on their toes to make sure everything is running into tip top shape. It's a job focused around paperwork and chair RP - and it already has plenty of opportunities for that. Whitelisting it and making it action oriented essentially kills its purpose.

Ban expired - appeal marked as denied for lack of user input.

It's not really an IC issue. IC sex isn't a problem OOCly - we do allow people to do it as long as it's fade to black. And if a character wants to disobey orders from a head (I think the quartermaster was looking for them), that's their own damn business. I would trust anyone applying for a head whitelist to know that's something we won't let heads do when they've got more urgent matters to attend to. Now, this becomes a problem when the ERP gets overly graphic in-game (as in no fade to black), as was the problem here. The moment underwear is taken off, eh, it becomes a rulebreak. Does that speak against you as a player? Probably a bit. But I trust Bokaza is aware of how far is appropriate to take things now (as the clowns will painfully remind him.)

This entire appeal proves to me that you don't understand why you've been antag-banned. Let's look at a few things. You don't know that. You obviously had the advantage on the HoP, given that you had the time to walk up to him, and kill him with an esword. The HoP did not take his gun out once during the entire fight - you basically killed someone "because they could be a threat". You had many other ways of neutralizing a threat /without/ killing them, while providing roleplay, such as by holding them at gunpoint and forcing them to surrender their weapon. Why the approach of "hack at them with a sword" was taken over that is beyond me. Except having an elite kill team that takes the station by storm and instantly executes everyone wouldn't be very fun, would it? That's why we require people to get a bit more creative, and if they are going to kill players, make it more fun for the victims than "you were in the way, you had to die". Then make him an asset - kidnap him, use him as leverage. Execute him when he's no longer of use to you, but make an /effort/ to provide the player with some roleplay before offing them. Also, killing the HoP doesn't stop anyone else from contacting centcom. This is why you take control of the bridge, destroy consoles, blow up telecomms if you must, etc. And there is no better way to anger/agitate a mob of people than to shoot randomly at them. The moment you discharge your gun at people, you lose the only dissuasive measure you have; the possibility that you might, in fact, not shoot at people if they comply with your orders. If you prove you don't care about that, then of course people won't listen. Shooting sends everyone in a panic, and shooting randomly, especially in this game, does not create order. Do not confuse "roleplay" with "work". You /can/ find some good roleplay around incidents such as hull breaches or injuries, but such roleplay is created by the involved players, not the antags which caused these incidents. You contribute nothing to the round by shooting people randomly - you merely prove to be an uninteresting annoyance, providing people no incentive to roleplay yourself. You and/or your partner were attempting to break into the medbay at some point, which people had tried to take shelter in after you started shooting at random. I'm not sure which of you two did it, or if you were both involved, so I'm willing to overlook that. I feel like you need to learn a lot more about antags before you consider playing them again. Take account of what is fun for others first and foremost, not what is the most realistic. Replies such as "syndicate ops just kill" are no way to get an antag-ban lifted. I would strongly recommend you take the time to read our rules again, and take a look at antagonist guides.

Invalid comparison; human sacrifice is not one of the major tenets of modern Christianity. Having the cult of Nar'sie Lite is an idea I'm pretty divided upon - on one hand, it does open the door for some non-violent cult RP, and I have no issue with it being a thing if the cult is about more than "let's sacrifice everything we can find". I personally don't think the (non-magic) cult is especially silly or immersion-breaking - the cult magic stuff they do is, but we wouldn't be encountering any of that during regular rounds. On the other hand, there's the ever-present risk of people taking it overboard. Some people might overdo it, especially with the general issues around the nature of cult, and I don't know if that's something we want to risk policing.

but do we really have to worry about an age cap when everybody's characters will never be older than 22

Here's the main counter-argument to that. Nar'sie, in its essence, is a religion about bringing about the end of the world. It is a cult of blood sacrifices and magic. Wouldn't any worshipper of Nar'sie be deemed insane, and thus go against our rules on sane characters?

Canon antagonist actions are fairly easy to fix - simply retcon them to not be syndicate. As long as your character isn't a hero that's had 100+ victorious encounters with space pirates, it should all be fine.

I aimed gun at some random person sitting at the corner counter, sipping his drink. Maybe he was a detective, still, i had my gun aimed to his head and two seconds passed. That does give enough time for anyone else to grab a weapon, should they wish.

Some clarifications - according to Sue, you originally aimed your gun at the detective - which is when the bartender decided to make a move for his shotgun. Thus, totally justified, given your character was distracted ICly, and not in a position to stop the bartender immediately. Except the bar was filled with security - and the bartender's shotgun pretty much exists literally for these situations. Granted, it would be more common for it to kick out aggressive drunks than actual hostage takers, but it is a self-defense weapon, that is perfectly validated in use for any situations in which an aggressor enters the bar with clear nefarious intents. As for the logs, go ahead and present them? I'm not sure what they prove, you were told very clearly twice that the matter was an IC issue, and not to be discussed via ahelp anymore.

Okay, this is civil. I can work with this. Two things. Firstly, it was an IC issue. You decide to walk into the bar, which is full of people, and brandish a gun. The bartender pulls a gun on you - you get into a mexican standoff. Nice situation, much RP. You can also shoot the bartender before he has the time to reach for his gun - justifiable - but expect to be dropped by whoever else has a weapon at that time. Was it shitty of the bartender to reach for his gun? Not necessarily. Storeowners do that - though usually not when the robber is aiming them down with their own weapon. Maybe the bartender had a bad day - and it gives you full right to gun them down for being an idiot at that point. But here's the problem - the more people are involved in your hostage situation, the more variables there are to control, and the higher the chances are of something getting ugly. It's sort of a shitty situation: pull gun, get gun pulled on, shoot dude down, get shot down by other dudes. Much shooty, no talky. But I'd say this is mostly a case of picking your battles (or non-battles) better - when you decide to hold up an entire room of sec officers, you're setting yourself up for a risk. Secondly, about the ban. You were told repeatedly (at least twice) that this was an IC issue, and despite that, and being informed that there were other avenues through which you were to discuss this, you kept arguing via adminhelp. This is why you were daybanned. Edit: And I got ninja'd by Sue u_u