Synnono

I got asked to clarify this, so I am here: IRs mainly exist to help gently correct player behavior when it is not meeting IC expectations, but not severely breaking OOC believability or conduct rules. Some people have also used them as purely RP tools between two characters in the past, and that's fine too. Which sort of way it's treated usually comes down to whether the involved players should know better, their dispositions, and what we can perceive in terms of their intentions. If a player has severe or recurring OOC issues with another player's IC behavior, they are better served by using player or character complaints. Those are publicly discussed and the results of those discussions are often posted in those threads. People who try to use IRs like a bludgeon to get at someone after a bad round are probably going to be disappointed in the results, and it's something I'm going to continue to discourage.

Closing this application at the request of the applicant.

Interview with the applicant:

Trial passed as of 2/21. Welcome to the team!

While it would be nice to have more European hour coverage, you mentioned to me last night that you're studying in the states on EST, which is my timezone and that of several others. Which parts of the year will you have that European time zone availability?

Directive has been updated on the wiki: https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Station_Directives#Regarding_Scientific_Experimentation_.26_Warehouse_contents_-_Station_Directive_4 It's probably safe to archive this, unless anyone has more to add.

I've always thought that Lab Assistants should have access to that lab like the rest of the old Exodus science wing (excluding toxins maybe, to avoid maximum grief). I'd be more supportive of that than of making a new job role. I know many of us hate adding more alt-titles here, but if the access is changed, maybe 'Robotics Assistant' could be one for Lab Assistant to signify the difference?

After deliberating, we're going to deny this application. FT and Skull both touched on the reality of what we do being a little different from your expectations, and that shouldn't be ignored. You appear to want to contribute to the atmosphere of the corporate bureaucracy, rather than to the staff team itself. This is more easily accomplished with a command whitelist and station IAA character. You can characterize them, and by extension the company, much more than we typically do with our CCIA agents. Most of our 'work' is in the background and not even connected to the progress or story of a given round, while players are actively participant in it. Being on the station like this would also give you time to do a couple of other important things. Firstly, you should make sure that you enjoy your time here and that you plan on staying around. Having some more time to consistently play and learn how things work after so much has changed will help people trust you with the decisions you'd be helping make on the team. To successfully apply, I think you will also need to address the concerns of the people who have criticized you, which is only going to happen with some time and an effort made to engage them. While I believe that something a person did two years ago shouldn't condemn them indefinitely in a roleplaying community, both players and staff need the opportunity to evaluate how you've changed. Jackboot calls out your eagerness and apparent good intentions as a positive, and I agree, but good intentions are ultimately just that. With the history, it would be irresponsible of us to accept this application on only good faith, and it's telling that no-one in this thread could definitively point to something as an indicator that you've changed for the better. They just haven't had the time. So, give it the time and work with the game, the players and staff. When you know what you want, and believe you can overturn some of the negative criticism here, I encourage you to apply again.

We've actually already had the chance to review this over the last couple of weeks. Right now it looks like there may be changes to some of the wording, but nothing that broadly changes the intention of the directive. People are already allowed to distribute things from the lab as long as they've been authorized for release and aren't breaking other regulations, and the directive isn't clear on that point. The directive is, however, responsible for covering more than just RnD, and needs to reasonably address the worst-case scenario behavior that doesn't break OOC rules. I believe some sort of command oversight should still realistically be in place. Draft coming soon

After discussion with admin staff regarding this player's behavior, this incident will be handled by the admins OOC. Since we don't double up on punishment, this IR will be closed. If the player's behavior persists, you are encouraged to file a player or character complaint here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=35

Interview with the applicant:

I'm all for adding a second slot (and shaker) to Bartender. It's a popular job that can be hectic when the counter is full of people. Though I think as it is, the mapped bar is a bit small for two players. I don't see the need to differentiate the roles by bartender/barista, but if the space was reworked a bit to include more coffee things, the people in those roles could certainly provide both kinds of services.

After deliberation, this incident report is being closed. Incident Reports are meant to be for serious and specific breaches of regulation that are not handled in the round. If the character's behavior is chronic, and there is an observable pattern that is not connected to a specific incident, it is more appropriate to file a character complaint here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=35

Giving this a bump, because I feel it's a good idea to separate development suggestions from other suggestions. Cuts down on clutter and won't distract the teams that need to look at only their respective issues.

After some deliberation, this incident report is being closed. Please be reminded that: 1. You are expected to attempt to resolve incidents of simple misbehavior in the round before submitting an Incident Report, and 2. If the character's behavior is chronic and there is an observable pattern that is not connected to a specific incident, it is more appropriate to file a character complaint here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=35

Hello. Please use the existing thread to discuss this: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10289

I'll be making the CCIA team aware of this thread as it develops. To the community: have you felt unreasonably constrained by this directive? If you could change wording in it, what would you change?

I was having trouble figuring out how to meaningfully endorse this application after everyone else. The above covers why I want to, though. Doc is a good writer, level-headed, well-aware of staff expectations thanks to her work on the moderation team, and focused on making the game engaging for other people, which is maybe the most important thing I want to see in a head of staff character. They're a player easily suited to the whitelist.

Agree, in short. Authority wise, I see the janitor position as closer to a hospitality role than a pure maintenance role. They aren't responsible for any critical systems, like Engineering or the Chief Engineer - they're just there to keep the place looking nice, and now, maybe keep the vendors stocked with k'ois bars. Having them fix windows is not even really a custodian's lane, but I like that they can do that too. I just don't see that a CE is required tell them when and where to do that. As a janitor, I don't want to have to ask things of a CE who is trying to repair a major hull breach or cool down the supermatter core. As a CE, I don't want to have to yell at someone because there's a booger on the floor, when a phoron fire is raging in the pool area. These are silly examples, but hopefully they illustrate some of the weirdness that manifests with this particular change. The other additions in the PR (Janicart, back-tank, vendor restocks) are fine. It's the authority shuffle (that has no effect on gameplay?) that could use reverting once the post-patch feature review period has passed.

For voluntary cyborgifications, a Head of Staff should not sign this release in the first place unless they are reasonably certain of the subject's mental well-being. Which, in the context of anyone but maybe the Chief Medical Officer, would have to come from an expert with the psychiatric qualifications to determine this. The people authorizing the release would ultimately be held responsible for the consequences of the procedure, and it's in their best interests to make certain that it isn't done lightly. While this should (in theory) make some manner of evaluation mandatory regardless, I don't know if I'm entirely supportive of putting a psych eval on the form as its own field. Psych is not a popular role, and the procedure itself is already difficult for someone without a "good" reason to get authorized. Without the extra technical hurdle of another signature, it's still a difficult thing to authorize while leaving more wiggle room for abuse by antagonists.

Trial started on 1/27.