Synnono

Thank you for keeping the lights on for so long, and for making this community stand out as one I wanted to call home during my time in SS13. I always appreciated your diligence in managing the server, and your patience with people like me. I'm still grateful for your answers to all my stupid questions about SmartGit and DM, way back when! (I've forgotten a lot of it from disuse, but I'm sure it'll come back fast) Best of luck to you in your degree and in your future endeavors, Skull!

Burrito is filled with a peculiar and specific rage. It is a rage that corrects typos and updates process, and I want them to be free to do both. I will be sure to funnel all my own corrections through them if they are accepted, as some sort of shadow-editor.

Nothing constructive to add here, but I'm glad to see you're alive and well, Elliot.

Then we can probably cover it in another thread, as the OP is not attempting to address this.

When we wrote this, I at least had it in my head that detectives are generally not strictly uniformed, and therefore not covered under Uniformed security employees. CSIs I believe do have some sort of uniform jacket or outfit. Since command is the group that enforces this expectation however, the interpretation of both of those instances is best left to them. In regards to the OP: I was neither the original submitter of this idea nor in the (rather strong) majority of people in CCIA channels who recommended we add it to Uniform Policy. Because support for it there was very strong however, we decided to try it out. The main driver of the change was @The lancer who I would like to have post here with a summary of what he hopes the changes will drive. I think I've explained this to Paradox before as well, but just in case there is any confusion, AFAIK this policy has nothing to do with the Cloak PR or dev's denial of it. It was unfortunate timing that both issues arose at the same time, separately.

This is getting a smidgen off-topic. Per the OP: yes, what is enforced by the reg is not the proper definition of the reg. The name of that reg can probably be changed, as it just requires a minor wiki tweak and a minor dev tweak to be reflected in game. Going to move this to "Accepted" for now, though CCIA may discuss further internally prior to implementation if they think the scope of the reg should change at all.

Sorry for letting this sit for a long time. Right now, I feel like the better option for AI players who feel abused by command players is to report them to the admins who handle Command whitelists. My reasoning for this is that AIs typically cannot participate in the IC reporting process, and I also think that the kind of player who would modify an AI without a good reason is unlikely to be stopped by an IC directive change. There will be some sort of justification or lowpop situation in which case the proposed provisions will either not apply or be somehow circumvented. It's minor, but I also am not a big fan of making a second, unique instance of rules for command voting, or giving the captain more "votes" etc. We have an existing set of guidelines for command authority that could already apply to the AI if necessary. Adding a vote for dismissal.

This report is being closed because there does not appear to be enough IC justification to file it. If you feel it is necessary, you may consider filing an OOC Player or Character complaint here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/forum/18-characterplayer-complaints/

TO: Khaled Al-Bastaki, Head of Security, NSS Aurora FROM: Whitney Foster-Liang, CCIA Bureau Supervisor, NT HQ Bldg. Mendell City SUBJECT: 24601110 KAl-Bastaki_SPicard File Closure -------------------- BODY: Syd Picard's employment has been terminated following his confession of terrorist activities against the People's Republic of Adhomai and NanoTrasen, as well as for making credible threats of harm toward Company officials. He has been detained and turned over to Federal authorities for criminal custody. As such, this file has been closed. Prepare to receive additional instructions for your security team via the appropriate channels within 1-2 days. -------------------- DTG: 1-10:37-TAU CETI STANDARD-12-2460 SIGN:

Thank you for doing all that you do Abo, and enjoy the big break. This place has had a couple of its best years with you!

Adding my sentiments to the above by Kaed, Butter and Mofo, just in case they happen to matter more here than they have previously in Discord or in the staff subforum. We should be able to edit our own posts. If there are any forums where that would be a bad idea, let's let admins write rules for it and require attention be paid to timestamps and edit reasons, rather than just turning it off.

This report is being closed because there appears to be insufficient IC grounds to file it. If you have outstanding issues with the involved players' OOC handling of a situation, we encourage you to file a character or player complaint here, as appropriate: https://forums.aurorastation.org/forum/18-characterplayer-complaints/

The above post was edited for clarity on one of the reported characters' roles, with the permission of the OP.

To clarify this, the player was restricted from playing the character of Marc Price specifically in a security role for one month, as an IC suspension. CampinKiller was never banned from the server, from playing security, or from playing Command as a result of the Incident Report investigation. They could have also joined a round as Price during the term of the suspension in a non-security role. The complaint he made regarding that investigation and our response to it may be reviewed here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?p=103565#p103565 The loss of the previous whitelist was a result of OOC actions taken after the closure of that first staff complaint, and further details are covered in the second staff complaint, which Doxx linked to in her post.

Trial starting 11/17, running for 30 days or two IRs, whichever takes longer.

This is a wiki-only change as it's pretty much just listed in the notes of the reg. The Chief Engineer is still on there for now, as their job guide indicates that they are primarily responsible for the AI and Telecomms' well being, but I agree with the sentiments in this thread that the RD is qualified to authorize a law change (and is usually asked to by people anyway, even if they were not technically authorized previously.) They can build them, so they know what they're doing to some extent, presumably. The wiki's regs page has been updated, to include the RD as originally suggested by the OP. Depending on how clear it needs to be I may slip a line into the RD guide as well. This thread will be archived.

It's been most of a week and the OP hasn't responded yet. Right now I don't think a convincing argument for new regulations has been made yet, so I'm adding a vote for dismissal.

Interview with the applicant:

Making the decision to legalize these items was [mention]Zundy[/mention]'s call. I'll let him explain what his vision for the in-game application of this lore is, if he cares to. In the meantime, the regs that were suggested by the OP should remain the focus of the discussion here.