Synnono

The CCIA team is mulling over this at the moment, but my initial stance (and the reason why something was not drummed up prior to this change) is this: We already have several regulations that can apply to someone who is abusing a legal drug (such as alcohol) that abuse of space drugs and psilocybin could now also fall under: - Hooliganism for being a doof under the influence, while not having any other real responsibility. - Neglect of Duty if you're impaired to the point where you cannot do your job to a satisfactory standard. - Failure to Execute an Order if your superior tells you to stop (or to not start in the first place), and you use anyway. Sec trying to buy booze under an insistent HoS's nose comes to mind. - Violation of Injunction, for people who have them drawn up against them for irresponsible usage. - Gross Negligence if your impairment causes serious harm or creates the imminent, obvious threat of harm Several of us want to avoid further regulation bloat where possible. I haven't dug through the wordings yet, but any specific references to alcohol intoxication can be clarified to include all legal substances, if they exist. Do you see a good case where these two proposed regulations might catch instances of violation that the others don't?

If this change is made to cargo, we'll handle the regulating then. Right now I imagine we would be using Fraud to account for the misuse of funds, possibly adjusting its definition to make the application to the cargo system more explicit. I would like to avoid adding new regulations for single cases where they may be broken, if possible. As for the idea itself, I'm a big fan. Department funds should be used for department things, and the current system makes it hard for someone to do that.

This post is being made on behalf of the reporting player, who submitted their complaint during the round. Please consider submitting IRs on the forum in the future, if you have a forum account.

From our subforum rules: If this was a complaint-worthy issue, you certainly didn't do anything to help it prior to submitting the complaint. Your character had the immediate authority to resolve the issue you had with another character in the round. You chose not to, lent the impression that there was no outstanding conflict after giving your warning, and later on you filed a complaint. Several of your command characters butt heads with people, and particularly this CMO. In the past, you've made OOC complaints about his player for them using the IR system against you, and you both push each other's buttons all the time. While you are not the only person to blame for that, only one of you is on a whitelist trial. We want to stop incidents of command players ego-sniping and undermining each other. You are both the oldest and most prolific user of Incident Reports on our server, and I can't quite believe you don't know exactly what you're doing when you submit one. The timing is suspect, regardless of who you messaged beforehand. I don't believe we can process this report in good faith, and I encourage you to make a character or player complaint if you have outstanding issues with that character/player.

In game bWQ-aDdS, you confronted a CMO as a Head of Security for locking down his department as a result of a littering crewman. In that game, as a Head of Security, you deliberated giving that CMO a criminal charge, but decided on a verbal warning instead. The two of you didn't speak about the incident significantly, after that. The incident was resolved within the round. Your HoS even apologized to the CMO at the end of the round, with no mention of any persisting conflict. As soon as that CMO's player decided to post negative feedback on your re-application, a day later, you immediately posted an Incident Report incriminating the character for the actions you had already resolved within the round. Is this the kind of behavior that we can look forward to, with you as a new whitelistee?

I've always been of the opinion that humans absolutely would build these, as we are freaky as heck and would rather indulge our imaginations than respect any sort of cultural or societal more. I'd love to see them come back, though I doubt the will is there on the development side.

AFAIK making vendors un-stockable with individual goods seemed to be done in order to stop the exploit of filling empty injectors/bottles with reagents again. It may have also been part of the nefarious plot to make Janitor part of Engineering. Since seed packs are single-use, I don't see the harm with letting them go back into the seed vendor. Depending on how the original code was changed it might make a little snowflake code, but it makes sense. Alternatively, I think a smartfridge might be able to take them? Slap one of those in there?

The above post was edited to remove OOC in IC. Please follow subforum rules.

I was going to wait just a little longer on this, but this was more or less the conclusion I'd arrived at myself. For all the paragraphs above, my thoughts basically boil down to "enjoy your time back and see how things go, first." Previous records shouldn't disqualify anyone from volunteering by default, but for the people who might be otherwise concerned, I don't think enough time has passed for them to determine whether they should be, anymore. Garn mentions in the complaint resolution referred to in this thread that you've been "clean for a while" but that's likely due to your spell away from the server. Giving folks a while to see the changes you reference in your interview seems like a great idea - then, if you have the interest and apply again later, they can vouch for you here too. Marking this as retracted for the time being.

Trial concluded. Applicant has been provided with feedback. Thank you for your interest in the team.

Interview with the applicant:

Hello there. Right now, all that this directive specifies is that: 1. When things are chill, a Head needs to be present and the others need to be okay with it. 2. When things are not chill, two Heads need to be present. The rest (mostly 'who else is allowed in with these people?') is already interpret-able by the players in the round, and I hesitate to restrict that to a predetermined list of specific job slots. Was there a recent scenario that prompted you to write this suggestion? And if there was, could you explain the issue you see that this change would address? Regarding the modification of AI laws - my assumption has previously been that Command Staff, regardless of their role within command, have been appropriately trained on the procedure of verifying or resetting a lawset. This process is effectively swapping a circuit board, and does not require an advanced knowledge of AI programming or logic. It is restricted to command generally because they are trusted by the company to handle such sensitive equipment. The provision for a roboticist in the Directive is presumably to diagnose issues with AI logic or integrity, or something similar.

Application accepted. Welcome to the team!

Just going to go ahead and add another +1 here, I guess!

These seem more like things with development solutions, rather than actual policy changes. Can we consider moving this to the regular suggestion forum?