Synnono

Trial started as of 1/24.

Trial passed as of 1/23. Welcome to the team!

Interview with the applicant:

I'm more or less in favor of letting players play how they like, as long as they pay attention to reason and our 'believable characters' rule. A 20 year-old person in food service could believably have the qualifications to work in most of the service jobs. A 29 year-old scientist on the other hand might have a single PhD that enables them to work in a specialized field of science, but not others. Thankfully, that scientist has a 'scientist' blanket role that several people can take. I think it's important to recognize that with our higher population and limited job slots, people aren't going to be able to play their characters at all if we restrict them too severely. The officer to paramedic example previous in the thread is something I think a player could stretch to fit. That said, I personally find it believable that people with high-paying or highly specialized jobs (command, doctors, researchers etc.) would stick to their important job or specialty most of the time. The Captain who also bartends, who also engineers on the side, is less believable than the Captain who is important enough not to work those two extra jobs, and maybe just shows up as a visitor when they want to be aboard and not working. The surgeon who spent 30 years to become a surgeon is believably aboard to do surgery, rather than run a NanoTrasen library. Exceptions to these rounds should be few and far between, maybe, but I don't think I'd like policy to prohibit them outright. People who hop too much are just in danger of breaking an already-established rule. Also, I don't think I like the idea of 'hobby' jobs that was previously mentioned. They direct people who wouldn't believably work those jobs to them, at the expense of characters who are designed to work them.

Hello again, sdtwbaj! Your previous application was denied in part because it seemed as though you really wanted to join the moderation team, rather than this one. I see that you're not applying for moderator this time, but has anything changed in terms of what you'd like to be doing on staff? How do you see having a role in CCIA enabling you to especially contribute to server roleplay, when players are already encouraged to do that?

I am pretty on board with this. Incentivizing stealing for heisters makes Heist more unique from Merc than "four less well-equipped mercs" and throws some randomness into what kit they can procure. Maybe there could even be antag-only suppliers in their rotation?

Can I ask why? I think more is better, as far as lore team and staff team diversity. More involvement from the players, and a bigger net being cast to get things done. Much of the lore team and current applicants to it are (or have been) imported or shared from/with other staff teams (multiple mods, devs, CCIA and wiki). At the time of me writing this, you'd only be able to support one of the current applicants to this position if you are excluding people who participate on other teams, as it seems there is a lack of outside interest. Are you calling out admins specifically when you take this stance? If not, what do you perceive as the problem with lore team members contributing to multiple staff teams?

Please consider either swapping this keg and this sink, or adding a second sink to the side with the keg. It's a very minor thing, but washing out glasses and stuff is silly when you have to lean through an airlock to do it each time. I don't think the grinder is used enough by most bartenders to justify the sink being in the back.

I think the job was originally supposed to be like the Internal Affairs section of a police department - hence the security access, comms, and so on. It isn't what they've ended up as, even if security is sometimes in need of the most oversight still.

I didn't even realize this happened. Yes please. Let agents be the anti-social bureaucratic nerds that they are, especially since our version of IA has less to do with the security department than it does with playing the corporate liaison/regulator.

I'd also like to see Doc on the team - she's thoughtful, inclusive and well-reasoned, and wants to pay attention to some less-exciting but important parts of the setting that I think are easy for devs to ignore when there's a story in their heads already. I think she'd do very well helping flesh out some of the older lore that desperately needs a consistency and quality pass.

I can hear Abo wanting to develop for Elyra from the other side of the ocean. He's consistently concerned for people's enjoyment, extremely active both as a member of staff and (importantly) as a player, and has shown plenty of interest in developing the fiction of the setting in reasonable and believable ways. I don't see why he shouldn't be seriously considered, now that admins are eligible for lore positions.

We've been informed that this incident was handled OOCly as an admin issue. Because we try not to double up on discipline for a given incident, this IR will be closed.

It certainly isn't doing anything exceptional, but I don't see why it has to be coded out, either. Most people who are serious about command roles don't use it as serious roleplay material in the first place. People who use it to meme will meme. If it was gone, the serious people would act exactly the same, and the memey people would find new means to meme on each other.

You weren't even in CCIA for half the year! Also, Ally was robbed, yes. So was Rabit, frankly. It's Beal not Bael I'm sorry

This really feels like a solution to be handled on a command staff basis to me. A station directive feels inappropriate. Policy-via-development/mapping feels even worse. [mention]BurgerBB[/mention] hasn't responded for a good bit. Thoughts in regard to any of the posts above?

Hello. Person who helps maintain Station Directives here. This feels like something that is a little too specific to how medical is run by command and the medical staff to qualify for a new Station Directive. While there aren't necessarily strict guidelines in place for what becomes one, the existing directives all have to do with the facility's structure, leadership, research mission, or relations with people external to the company. The exception to this (AI access) is probably in there because the AI is supposed to be one of the most expensive, classified, irreplaceable things on the station. While medical is an important department to a round, I don't think it needs a new directive about it just to keep people out of it. People who don't have access to the department should be asked to leave, and those that don't can have security called on them. If people ignore you, let Command know. If Command ignores you, let IA know. If everyone is ignoring you, it's probably because a cult is murdering everyone and you should consider saving your own life. Basically, having a Station Directive to point to as justification for kicking people out will not ultimately be that much more effective than having the already-existing regs to point to. These could be Trespassing at the least, to Failure to Execute an Order if it's from Command, or maybe even Illegal Blocking of Areas if they're REALLY getting in your way.