ForgottenTraveller

Precisely. Or if they are abusing funds to endanger others, been robbing other staff and transferring it to their account. There is a time and place to freeze someones on-station assets. Suspension just isn't one of them.

Hells Yes. +1 There has been talk of just flat out noping any more Adhomi war effort or similar Rev notices, the last one only made it through at admin request. It has tested out patience giving the benefit of the doubt to silly ones. Or those relying on us to just rubber stamp their I can do whatever I want coz central stuff, Antags need to stop using the Odin for a bloody crutch. The main issue was deciding when to tighten the screws, this thread is a good spur on.

Absolutely fucking not. The only statement I can think Xander is referring too is the other policy suggestion. Where I said you should under no reason revoke payroll on a suspension, NOT EVERYTHING. There will be situations where payroll revocation is applicable and desirable.

You are confounding review and veto power. A HoP is expected to facilitate the expert judgement of another head that an employee is not fit for their department. Denying that on its face, just promotes in fighting and obstructionism. Review in this sense is a post action issue to work against it after the action has been taken if you find it unjust. If the employee in question has been suspended and ordered to leave by a head of staff regarding it and important that they do, it stands as a valid order, if a HoP then denies it, it prevents the employee whether they want it or not from complying with a legal order. Turning it into a potential case for their arrest if they come back unchanged. Things should be reviewed and acted upon, and then challenged if found sub standard. And whitelisted players get the power to ruin/affect players rounds due to having the obligation to facilitate player's rounds and make them fun, sometimes to save 1 or more player's rounds possibly even their own, or at the expense of their own enjoyment another's has to be ruined. You are proposing obligation without power or privilege, and while the obligation is ignored and/or power and privilege is not often abused as you have stated, you want to affect those in the more often category negatively in a blanket action where there are more effective targeted means of managing these exceptions. In essence punishing all whitelist players for the actions of a few. That can and have been handled via other methods Once again, and for the last time. I am saying this policy needs to prove its worth (evidence and statements would be best) or it is for the bin. The positive to negative weighting on overall gameplay for this change is negative with everything I am aware of and everything presented. In short it lacks merit to be even considered actionable or up for trial in my books.

I posted the form in a spoiler in my first comment. Read it. While it doesn't require two signatures it does need stamping of a head of personnel/captain. Leaving the only two single person loops as the head of personnel can stamp their own form, where in personnel are and managing them is their entire job and we give them access to the accounts, which they could rob blind. So if you can't trust them with a form in good faith, what can you reasonably assign to the HoP role that isn't a glorified QM. And captains. The captain has authority over their vessel/station to make general decisions about it's day to day running, he doesn't need to be chasing stamps. Outside of those two, each form has oversight of a second person in a command level position. An while I haven't really played much in the last month, there wasn't grave abuse of the authority of the head of personnel before, and I have not heard of more. Nor seen any IRs. An this policy seems to just be 'Mah IAA powah'. If there has been a giant fall from grace in that time, I want statements because otherwise we are fixing what ain't broke to fuck over those playing captain and head of personnel to make their rounds less fun. While command roles have benefits they also come with obligations and responsibility. Which can make aspects of the role less fun. This suggestion would toss more effort on a HoP or captain into the obligation and responsibility pile, removing potential fun for many. And as you were harping on role statistics before, it kind of shows we have an issue with people wanting to play those two roles for the lack of appeal and fun. So it may be worth reviewing making things more appealing for those roles. Not making it worse for them for the sake of IAA powah. Everything is connected, and one policy change can have knock on consequences. I don't take them lightly. This one needs to prove it's worth and need. Or consign it too the bin.

The avowal was written by Lore. So I cannot cite the original intent but when accepting it I broke down the signatory sections such. Vaurca signature: [field] - Asset party Head of Staff signature: [field] - Liable party Captain/Internal Affairs signature: [field] - 3rd Party Witness Once again they are acting as a third party neutral. Technically anyone could be the 3rd party witness, but the corp wants loyalty implanted personnel not directly involved in the department. Which is why in this case the captain is a viable witness.

^^This is why suspension exists. Now to break down the initial part. Correct. Mostly, they suspend the activity of the employee, not the contract. Wrong. As stated in the form (Spoiler below.) Suspension in that form is temporary and removes them from ACTIVE status. It does not change their employment role. Which is why it is a suspension. It suspends activity. Correct. As they are no longer on active duty they may as well be a visitor, an inactive staff visitors don't get their role access if they are inactive station. Wrong, so wrong that if you are doing this in a suspension you should be getting punished. In real life there is suspension without pay, and suspension with pay. Your employer can stop new money coming in, it can't freeze your damn assets. No. The IAA is the on board personage for RECOURSE in an unjust suspension. They cannot be a neutral third party if they are involved in the suspension. The suspension is meant to be used like a floor manager sending an employee home if they are being difficult or come to work in an unreasonable state, and then later report that to their higher ups. It is unfortunate that server culture has used the demotion in its place instead, forgetting about this form. Even I have been guilty of that as a HoD. Suspensions should be used far more often than 'demotions to assistants' than they currently are. With demotions being within departments.

Pulled from the cciaa-logs discord. All listed BOREALISIIBOT times are 23/11/2017 New Zealand Daylight Savings (NZDT) All non-automated Aurora to Odin communications included. Only announcements 1 & 2, received faxes 1-4, and sent faxes 1-5 are relevant to the complaint Bot-BOREALISIIBOT - Today at 5:32 PM New fax arrived! CENTCOM FAX: "NFC-1002 - General Fax" by Eleanor Shen. (2 agents online, 1 AFK.) New fax arrived! CENTCOM FAX: "sheet of paper" by Yasmin Al-Hamdan. (2 agents online, 0 AFK.) Received 1: Received 2: Announcement 1: Captain Authority Template Announcement 2: Sent 1,2, & 3: Bot-BOREALISIIBOT - Today at 6:13 PM New fax arrived! CENTCOM FAX: "NCF-0108-001" by Eleanor Shen. (2 agents online, 0 AFK.) Bot-BOREALISIIBOT - Today at 6:15 PM New fax arrived! CENTCOM FAX: "NCF-0108-001" by Eleanor Shen. (2 agents online, 0 AFK.) Received 3, & 4: Sent 4, & 5: Bot-BOREALISIIBOT - Today at 6:48 PM New fax arrived! CENTCOM FAX: "NFC-0108 - Situation Report" by Olivia Catherina. (2 agents online, 0 AFK.) Received 5: Sent 6: Log Error. Recovered without completed DTG

Coming back from my vaca for a mo to labour a point again about how I feel about name drops and quotes relating to me, especially in regards to sourcing, and context. When quoting, the convention is to quote the text exactly as it appears in the source. It is common to mark a misspelling (or other problematical word) that might be otherwise thought to be an error by you (the quoter) by following it with "[what you think was intended]". The square brackets indicate that the text was added by the quoter. And while yes the original is a poorly formatted sleep deprived block of text. The quote has no line breaks to create disparate parts, and given the nature of several other sleep deprived statements at the time, breaking them down in such a manner could break context while in this case it does not. The quote and sources are. - ForgottenTraveller, CCIA Team Leader Excerpt from Re: Remove Internal Affairs or Make Staff Improve It #9 ^^ This lets people trace back and verify you information. instead of taking it on good faith or searching every inch of the forums for it. For anyone unsure how to get words over just he viewtopic link. Here is a code version of the one above. Excerpt from [url=https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=8809#p8251]Re: Remove Internal Affairs or Make Staff Improve It #9[/url]

I'm going on a break for a month. See you all when I get back. Whiterabit is in charge while I am away, please route all issues that you would have with me to them. No calls, PMs, or the like to me in the interim, I won't pay them any attention.

I support the idea. But with those that are against it because they would feel cut off. What if we leave the entertainment channel active, but only on intercomms and station bounce radios. Meaning if they want an access point to everyone. They will have it at the expense of an external item. An possibly give intercomms like 2 listening slots but only one mic slot, so people could listen to two channels, but have to manually set which they want to talk to. But station bounce stay with one. If that was implemented, possibly manufactured or ordered by cargo. Have an entertainment receiver. A headset for your other ear with no mic so people can listen in to that one channel only on the go, contributing to it you still need one of the other methods.

[mention]Senpai Jackboot[/mention][mention]Killerhurtz[/mention] Right just finished my last draft of the known contraband list for [mention]ParadoxSpace[/mention] [REF:https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=118&t=8101&p=79108&hilit=contraband#p79108] Took a while to figure out a decent way of doing it and what should and shouldn't be on the list as I could see. So here it is. Feel free to add or subtract with the wiki page if you feel it needs it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1edjh_5NapdpNQMDrSZolViE00eqpZNAlx6BJgyv9X9Y/edit?usp=sharing

No. The uniform is a standing order from the Central Command. Command staff have been selected expecting them to lead in the best interests in the company. The Head of a department has no obligation to follow a suggestion, they are suggestions. If they are violating regulations and central mandates that changes the landscape.

An given what happened while I was writing that epic. Ron makes an excellent point. An I have spoken to Arrow.

You can get a partially defined version of this authority. As it relate to the CCIA, as a liaison with the station from CC, you mandate for looking after NT interests by helping with crew information requests on regulations or company positions, informing crew, making recommendations if you feel an action conflicts with NT goals, investigations, conflict resolution, and intermediary assistance is broad, capable of change and would take hours to create in the correct level of detail. *addition before posting* Given all the effort and time referencing, collating, and explaining what as an ex-CCIA Azande should know and information everyone will have had access to at some point and most have access to at any point. I will not be responding to a nitpick quoting any of this, especially on grammatical or spelling errors. If you take issue, I expect details and sources (NOT QUOTES). Especially from Azande given two unsubstantiated claims already that are almost entirely false on all counts. That said. Here is the IAA defined. Now lets cover your example. In short. Wrong, right, wrong, wrong, wrong, and. Wrong. CC announcements say you do have authority, elsewhere it does mention station command, Captain is specified as most were not bloody acknowledging their authority. You are right in that Random crew don't have authority. They have rights. IA have the authority investigate and speak up about seeing them upheld. Command has the expectation to uphold them. You can speak to them directly, no where has it ever stated as near as I can recall otherwise, if that isn't in your head I want the source because that needs fixed if it exists. A head of a department manages a department, if they are there, you are expected to involve them as you are introducing yourself as a variable into their department which can effect what they are trying to do and the outcomes they are looking to achieve. They can also remove someone from their department, or you know order them to comply (i111 Failure to Execute an Order) with your recommendations. If they don't agree with you and see fit to continue ignoring an order they are to uphold the HoD is neglecting their duties in following command orders. Which you would bring to security, then a captain. Given it is a minor regulation a captain could contest the need as they are running a station as the see it is needed. At that point you may if you really want to die on that hill, contact Central over command failing to uphold corporate standards. An how this particular incident is a danger to NT's interests. Because if you are going over a captain captaining there best be a risk involved because you are contacting a central office on inappropriate attire. Which in most cases isn't worth their time to even reply too. Sources notes. Generally https://byond.aurorastation.org/ccia/generalnotice - note this is behind a command whitelist lock, relevant articles are below in full Internal Affairs Investigations - On the automatic roster Authourity to investigate. Check. Power boost if ordered by command staff. Ultra boost when upped by CC. No power denial here, exact opposite Incident Reports - On the automatic roster Internal affairs resolves issues and can be an excellent intermediary between command and CC and crew to crew, command was expected to get involved in incident report resolutions due to the lack of IAAs. It wants an attempt made. 'that cannot be resolved during the shift' Excerpt from point 7 of the Incident report guidlines. Doubling down on attempting to resolve an issue, which IAAs are your go too for if it is not a cut and dry regulations issue for sec. Internal Affairs Authority - On the automatic roster You can't authourize warrants or do the security paperwork that particular security staffers have to do themselves for accountability. That is the restriction. You are IAAs not Security lite. This came about after some IAA's wanted guns and wanted to play officer as they had the security channel. Uniform Regulation - On the automatic roster In regards to your point on uniform, IAA's can intercede as they see fit to try an dissuade people from violating the uniform reg, but the announcement details a possible security response which the IAA cannot due to not having warrant power. But most of the time sec won't want to bother with this low level stuff, so getting the offender onto it or hold officers to account to keep the place up to standard and failing that reporting them for neglect is within your purview. Possible regulations it can fall under. i105 Indecent Exposure - Put your tits/manboobs back in your top you are at work. i111 Failure to Execute an Order - This is an order from CC to wear your uniform, if you are out of appropriate attire, you are failing it i201 Failure to Execute an Order with Serious Consequences - Some jumpsuits have protections and act like personal protective equipment (PPE) or used too/icly do. A sec one has more padding, you could get very hurt in comparison. Or contaminate food in the kitchen, or get sick in medical. i206 Neglect of Duty - Not using your PPE causing you to do a less than satisfactory job due to your inadequate dress https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Corporate_Regulations Central Command Internal Affairs Agent Visit - Used as needed As normal, which as listed above, means IA investigations continue as normal. Incidents and complaints continue as normal. Captain Authority - On the automatic roster

False. Tantamountly false. You have lobbied for IAA powers a long while, and you were a CCIA Xander, and involved in some of the discussions, you know better. But assuming you forgot and were not misleading for dramatic effect. Here is a list. 1. IAA assistance has been trialed and failed. Pre CCIA recorders logging to server. 2. Tasks were given out to IAA that asked for them if we had any. This was pushed for a while. They then stopped asking, so we stopped giving, then logging became a bigger part for oversight by administration. It was never picked up or pushed again. 3. Consideration on after logging has happened at least twice as far as I can recall if not more so. Usually dropped as we have no method of hard data collection that cannot be modified. << You called for one of these before I became lead and had this issue brought up when you were in the CCIA. 4. Taking outside witness statements was considered and dropped for the reasons above. 5. Multi-round IAA investigations were considered but shot down by administration due to oversight issues. << Originally proposed by either Azande or Jackboot if I recall, leaning on the latter. 6. Sept 2016 I specified the responsibility of crew involving an IAA (of which an IAA can post on behalf of the victim, posting after round is still a thing as we cannot 'save' a fax) before coming to the CCIA. IAA involved incident reports are treated with move value and considered more accurate. 7. The CCIA will generally approve any reasoned investigation to continue by an IAA in round. 8. The CCIA will generally take advice and recommendations from in round IAA's who have been involved in complaints, issues, and or incidents up and too punishments with the correct checks and balances done in follow up. 9. The CCIA docking announcement pretty much says we aren't here for your current problems, take them to someone who we pay to give a shit. As for make staff improve it. I would support if it we had IAAs who actually made an effort to take up olive branches given, too often have I seen it as a nope not good enough we want more power. An have done nothing with it. The biggest issue when CCIA consider it is un-editable logs for oversight. CCIA recorders save a log to the server, so if anyone makes a staff complaint and says I never said that, there exists a log that cannot be altered. It was an oversight mandate by administration I am in favour of. An IAA lack that capacity. Which has snuffed out a few suggestions. In round investigations are not pointless, I was kinda hoping to expect them. An got disappointed. An the main improvement I would love that would help the IAA, is the ability to 'save' select faxes, it would make avowal's complaints and IRs so much easier, and has been internally suggested a few times, and I am unaware of the difficulties that have stalled and or ended all attempts. But most importantly. the IAA will not improve if the players of IAA don't do anything with it, and the playerbase as a whole won't go to them with their issues. An so if we were to have the ability to save a fax and the transferred data, and IAA still went not enough and we want more. Because at that point they can do almost all the leg work and only checks and balances are needed. Then I would go with remove it entirely. Because it isn't worth feeding a power trip, as it never ends. You already have authourity, Just no one ever fucking uses it. ^^ I was going to finish with that line as it sounded good, Then I remembered. Worse than that is. Over-assumes their authourity tries to lay one down and gets backslapped for it by command, occasionally tries to double down. Gets pimpslapped by the CCIA, and in the case of Hunter Robinson. [Perma ban due to other issues repeat step one and two upon returning] Triples down, pinning someone to a wall and threatens to torture them, and is violent in trying to anyone trying to stop him. Then quadruples down making up a fake CCIA to the CCIA Agents, on the record. Pentuples?even a word? down and says the agent he knows ranks higher than the CCIA leader, and no one has the authourity to stop him in his quest. He was going to forever prison before they managed to earn another permaban. Don't be a Hunter Robinson guys. It brings down the whole IAA a notch.

Captain's are the absolute authority on the station because they are the captain. The implant is that they are reassuring you that they are meant to be acting in your best interests even if you are not fully aware of the context. The implant doesn't make a leader, it makes reassurances. As for the speciation. NT is a human company so humans get to be captains, and Skrell are our longest found alien sentient species, and are seen as culturally advanced. They are effectively our most respected other alien species. Where Taj and Nathi are seen as backwards and behind the times. An the collective is viewed less favourably. Diona are weird, and we met the vacura less than a year ago canonically. An synths are seen as we made you we tell you what to do not the other way round. An 'rise of the machines' fear.

I am less than pleased in the wording of this discussion. I encouraged you to make a thread discussing your idea with everyone who was interested as it effect them, and it is important for them to have input. After you tried to get a quote from me on this. An you title the thread in a manner that seemingly tries to shut them out. Which isn't bloody fair. While I personally sit on option 1. I am going to sit on a formal statement for a bit. For the input of players who would be significantly affected by any decision given that is the discussion I encouraged, and provides actual help. I know the letter of current announcements, I want to know how strong the server culture is with the idea we don't need them, and if going with option 1 how opposed to change it is. Or if we go with option 2 or 3, how will those likely affected think about what to expect? An I will say again. The forum is a place for everyone to have input, and a off-the-cuff decision on whether to go with culture or law is not my place to make, nor I think any one other staff member without consideration of the rest of the players. Because if it is cultural, and everyone is against it. It could be ignored en-masse. Making it all pointless and antagonistic.

Reporting Personnel: Eric Loch Rank of Reporting Personnel: Quartermaster Game ID: bP1-dkmZ Extended Personnel Involved: (Name, Rank: Offender/Witness/Other (Ckey)) - Gray Burns, Shaft Miner: Victim - Mikvrel'Syahkrl Srrijcha, Cargo Technician: Witness - Serena Johnson, Shaft Miner: Witness - Sydney Grace, interim CMO: Offender - Thomas Graham, Medical personnel, rank unknown: Offender - Annika Pertovka, Nursing Intern: Witness/Involvement unknown - Eleanor Shen, Captain: Other - Lukas Chapman, Head of Security: Other - Jacob Stover, Detective: Offender Time of Incident: ~30 minutes into the shift and the following 2 hours Real time: ~2330GMT 17/08/17) Location of Incident: Station exterior near mining. Mining. Medical Nature of Incident: []Workplace Hazard []Accident/Injury []Destruction of Property [X]Neglect of Duty []Harassment []Assault [X]Misconduct [X]Other: Medical Malpractice Overview of the Incident: Shortly after arriving and going outside Miner Burns fell down a hole that was dug for sand. He radioed in his accident, and was wearing a GPS, medical was immediately given location data and what happened to the miner over the radio by myself. I then went to the mining airlock cycled it to the station side and put the hoist and ladder inside it for the rescue efforts. I then informed medical that the recovery gear was on site and they merely needed to get here. Two to three minutes later with no arrival on site. I called for medical aid once again. Not wanting to wait on them any longer. I asked Serena to make her way over and recover Burns using the gear, I sent Tech Srrijha to medical for one of the rollerbeds we had delivered to the medical lobby which they had not moved to transport Mr Burns. Serena recovered Burns alive but badly wounded, and transported him via rollerbed to medical very quickly as she was on hyperzine. As she reported to me, she made it to the med lobby with time to spare where medical personnel stood or sat around not helping Burns as he bleed out. Mr Graham being notable in that he was on the CMC and just sat there and in later discussion mentioned to me that he called for doctors. Around two to three minutes after entering the lobby. Mr Burns bleed out from his injuries with no medical personnel intervening. It was my feeling that Mr Burns should not have died in any fashion during this incident. So I made my way to medical and grilled the iCMO on why my miner had died. She merely repeated a few times that she would clone him if his records allowed it. And then after me mentioning the numerous failings of medical and the mention of her missing the aid calls on common and medical, after a bit apologised for the incompetence of her doctors then in her own failings. When I then mentioned in my anger Mr Graham, she pulled me aside and whispered that she was distracted with one of her doctors she found suspicious. An repeated the clone if records allowed it matter. I returned to cargo. Mere minutes later Burns returned to cargo looking worse for wear but alive, feet bloodied and shoeless. When the cargo tech and I talked to him he mentioned he was told he fell and died by the and was cloned then let out of medical by the iCMO by his reports. He had headaches, occasionally went blind, and lost motor function repeatedly. The tech urged him to take it easy. At that time an anomaly incident occurred and the three of us we expose to a minor radiation blast. We all went to medical, where we were scanned, and Burns was found to have his brain working at half capacity and it was not treated during his cloning. The tech then returned to cargo, while I went about trying to contcat the captain, leaving Burns for further treatment. I met with no response at first, So I contacted the HoS to locate the captain, or failing that have him look into it. Due to incidents relating to EMP and other such issues, the next 30 minutes turned up very little progress. At that point the Captain awoke from their first nap and was on site at the bar, and asked me what the issue was via PDA. While organising anomaly removal from mining the Captain left, and less than 5 minutes later made an announcement that they were taking another nap, for reportedly ten minutes. They did not awake in the following hour aside from maybe waking and going to cryo or being taken there. I then went into looking to get the HoS to help me and take the needless death of Burns seriously. The HoS called for his detective to come see me instead of coming in person, the detective walked past ignoring me, 10ish minutes later the HoS walked in, and asked me if the detective had seen to me. I told him no, he then contacted detective Stover who then PDAed me asking for my opinion of medical rather than taking my statement, I told the HoS this, he then chased up his detective to do it in person, while printing out a complaint form and sending me off with Stover, who took me to his office, but would not let Burns or my assistant QM into the room quoting it was my complaint. Then during my statement made light of the issue treating it as commonplace and of little interest. Angering me as though he thought it was a joke. He then refused to give me a copy of the attached transcript as I was not done writing this report, when the shuttle landed he thanked me for 'wasting his time' I then shouted at him as I gave him the half finished version of this report, to finally get a copy of the transcript he refused to produce on several occasions. I then missed the shuttle and finished this in the vacant office to fine upon my return. Mr Burns died needlessly was treated poorly and below standard leaving him broken disheveled and unable to return to work properly, in seeing him around the station he looked to me as though he never fully recovered from this neglect, wandering aimlessly through the halls still shoeless the last time I saw him when meeting up with the HoS and he happened to come by. None of the heads nor the detective seemed to treat this as a serious issue for what was done to that poor man. With the greatest if less than helpful response being from Mr Chapman. All other parties treated it as a joke or not worthy of their time nor their responsibility. And while being command staff, Mr Chapman was the least related member to the issue I could have gone too. Captain Shen was of no help, their frequent and long naps and their only action hindered me, and in action further hindered with the assignment of an assistant QM without a word, and then justifying I had to train him as I had to, with a paltry thanks tacked on the end after they had note they were going for another nap. My issue was not that I had to train him, but that I was not notified in any fashion, a stragne man in assistant robe showed up flashing an assistant QM ID in my face being my first notification of it. They then abandoned me for a nap. After the CMO they appointed failed to correctly clone Mr Burns leaving him in the state he was after the neglect of the medical department as a whole let him die in vain. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: iCMO Grace, then Captain Shen, then HoS Chapman. Actions taken: iCMO Grace fobbed me off with talk of a suspicious doctor making her drop the ball prior to cloning. Captain Shen was napping then present for all of 10 minutes, when engaged they fobbed me off to the HoS for another nap. HoS Chapman took a long while to get to me then gave me a complaint form and sent me off with detective Stover who treated the death of a man as a non-issue and a joke. Additional notes: Transcript: PDA Chain Eleanor Shen PDA Chain Lukas Chapman PDA Chain Jacob Stover

I think one of the main reasons it kicked off so much was Head of staff HoS and Head of security HoS. If we start going for Head of deptartment or HoD for heads in general it may help the 3 letter acronym come back easier. An it always seemed less military too me and more role recognition.