Synnono

Application accepted. Welcome to the team!

Hi Krampus. I've given the team plenty of time to contribute to this thread and internal discussion. At the end of it here, I've decided to deny this application. There are two major concerns that I have, and the first is your activity. You've played five rounds in the last two months, which is low for a player, let alone a member of the staff team. Despite what you've mentioned in your application, my experience has been that team members tend to play less rather than more when they have staff obligations. Right now, I'm not confident enough you'd be around to cover the server during rounds, or do the work we'd ask you to do outside of them. The second concern I have is your motivation for joining. People who join just for the heck of it, or so that they can RP central command, get very quickly turned off by dealing with the out-of-game side of our work and tend to go inactive quickly. While we appreciate people who want to add a little life to NanoTrasen IC, the staff work is significantly less fun than that and takes up much more of our time. You don't seem to be able to identify anything about that that appeals to you, so I imagine none of it actually does. At the end of the day, that's not the kind of staff member we're looking for, and I suspect we're not the kind of group you're looking for either. You could probably satisfy most of your RP needs by getting a command whitelist and playing an Internal Affairs Agent. Thank you for your interest in the team. Feel free to apply again in the future if you find yourself more engaged with us here. I'll be locking this now and archiving it soon, but feel free to DM me with any questions.

Interview with the applicant:

This is being posted on behalf of [mention]TheGuyThatIsAFK[/mention], who submitted this report during the round with the Game ID below. Minor edits have been made to the formatting and some lists, as they were pulled directly from the game server. As a reminder, please try to submit your own Incident Reports if you have a forum account. Thank you!

I'm down with that:

Locking and archiving.

Adding my thoughts here as the person who applied the original suspension, and the person who supervises the one who applied the second. During our own DMs concerning the CCIA action where you pulled that quote from, you expressed to me that Price is "the only character you play" and that you didn't want to make a "throwaway character" for a month. After Ben applied the extension to the suspension concerning the second incident, you told him that you "have half a mind to ignore [the IC action] considering how many levels of bullshit it is." You'd even brought up logging Price in as HoS despite our actions in that conversation. With these things in mind, are we supposed to believe that you rolled up this character with any intention of observing the original action, because one letter in his name and his employment records had changed? When I say that what you did is "discouraged," it means that if someone's going to toe the line and show us they don't want the IC treatment, we end up referring them to admins to see if something OOC should be done instead. In this case, they decided that something should, and CCIA has no further say in that. By doing something like this instead of making a truly unrelated character, you're asking to test the limits of what evading an action means. I feel like you can't be surprised when it becomes an OOC issue as a result.

Trial on hold until 8/31 due to the player being on vacation. Edit: resumed, pending completion of current IR.

This report has been re-opened on our side internally, and the actions/notes applied to Eliade have been removed while the report continues to be processed. We're going to leave the IR thread where it is in the archive. Keep in mind that the statement Eliade gives might not affect the original outcome of the investigation. I consider this complaint resolved at this time, as you two have agreed on meeting and the previous actions no longer apply, but I'll leave this open for a while for additional comments or discussion.

Hello. From our instruction thread, concerning disregarding interviews: "If a player does not reply to your attempts to contact them within seven days, you can disregard their interview" is the expectation on our side. This is meant to ease processing of reports of people who either can't or won't reply to us, or people who have left the server since the report went up. We then proceed with what we can, and in the case of the characters being accused of something, assume they have nothing to say in their defense. It is not intended to be a hard time limit for people who reply and start the process of scheduling with us. As was mentioned above, once someone does reach out to us, scheduling can and often does take us past the seven day mark, and is a two-way process. It's part of the reason why these reports sometimes sit for so long. On the CCIA side, I expect that team members be persistent and use multiple means of communication to make this contact throughout the seven day time period (BYOND pager, discord, forum PM, server PM, etc.), so that we can justify disregarding an interview in the event it all doesn't work out. After speaking to both of you in this case however, it appears that this communication didn't really happen, which is not ideal for us. After speaking with TR, he bought up the possibility of getting Eliade's interview done. I can nullify the previous action on his file and re-open the investigation if you think that would work for you [mention]Azande[/mention], as we seem to have moved on hastily here. Coordinate with TR, and let me know the result between the both of you here. Our training material will also be clarified on this point. This is the first time it's been an issue, but the instructions don't spell the expectation out to the extent that would have avoided this situation.

Also mentioning [mention]The lancer[/mention] as they both worked on this. I'll be handling this complaint.

Thank you for your interest in the team and for submitting your application. For now, I've decided to deny this one. My main concern here is that you don't seem to have a good reason to want to be on the staff team. Most of what we do is not all that exciting, and can in fact detract from your enjoyment of the game as a player. Plenty of people who have joined the team have taken an IR or two and then gone inactive, and that's not the kind of team member we want. If you want to volunteer because it's a 'good experience to have,' my impression is that you won't be invested when things inevitably get unfun, and we'll lose you fast. You're free to apply again in the future. I'll be locking this here and archiving it soon, but feel free to DM me with any questions.

Local Mod doesn't actually read the wiki and we totally made no edits to it after your post nope none And to add some relevance, I don't think those positions are beyond the reach of a purpose-made machine. If you see one floating around trying to do too much beyond what is expected of its role, that seems more like a character issue to be settled by the lore devs or admins.

I don't know whether I'm the one to dismiss this as it appears to be the OP asking that we restrict the jobs OOC, but I'm not supportive of it. There's now been history/lore establishing what the species can and cannot do within the system and the company. We have recently updated regulations to reflect the supposed discrimination that already exists. I don't think we need to target characters by barring them from command slots too. We often brand ourselves as 'sci-fantasy' and it can at times be more valuable to a plot or narrative to just suspend your disbelief when it comes to hard realism. Or, like Strudes mentioned, make it an IC facet of your characters and promote the conflict it causes, rather than asking for a community-wide change. Not sure if I can vote on this, so I'll hold off for now until I get an admin's clarification.

Not super supportive of this idea. The round often depends on a working engine, and making it harder to operate is going to increase the number of bad rounds we have due to either failure at setup or delamination. I don't feel like difficulty = interesting by default. Changes could probably be made, but complicating something that the entire crew depends on for the sake of complicating it doesn't seem like a great idea.

This has barely been touched for half a month and I'd still like not to enforce this via Directive. Voting for dismissal.

Hi there Campin. Also mentioning [mention]Sharp[/mention], [mention]Doc[/mention] and [mention]ShameOnTurtles[/mention] for review's sake. For disclosure's sake, CCIA actions to take on this incident were proposed by me, after a review of our transcripts and the consideration of team member summaries and discussion. Also, while I'm talking about them in this complaint, it is not our expectation as a team that people who submit Incident Reports be entitled to hear about actions taken by staff on other players' characters. Typically, we disclose on a case by case basis at the team member's discretion. You and I talked extensively in DMs about this already, so I'll summarize the points that I made or wanted to make in those prior chats. Firstly, concerning the differences in levels of fault/punishment: I looked to assign fault according to the individual conduct of each character and the consequences of the events of the round. The most severe of these consequences was, by far, the two canon employee deaths of Security Cadet Michelle Sulyard, and the Response Team Phoenix trooper that was requested via keycard authentication device. These deaths are the things primarily responsible for the suspension, and are attributed to Marc Price for these reasons: 1. Cadet Sulyard was Price's direct subordinate, and had been used as a fully armed and armored officer during the Roanoke operations and in combat with the xenoform. Price indicates she was issued lethal weaponry for handling the fighting in his own interview. Both Command and Price's own security team indicated that Sulyard was not prepared for such a threat, and should not have been placed directly in harm's way. Just as the Captain is directly responsible for Price's actions, Price was directly responsible for Sulyard's. Central Command agrees with this assessment. 2. Price failed to heed the Captain's decision not to call an ERT. This is the only reason a trooper arrived to be killed by the xenoform at all. Price coordinated the swipe over comms. Unlike the other Heads who were willing to swipe, Price is also the Head of Staff directly responsible for the security of the station, and at this point has demonstrated that he is unwilling to defer to the Captain's authority over it. He made that security decision, and in the end, while it could not be determined that the trooper had a tangible effect in handling the threat, it was very clear that he had paid for it with his life. Blame can't be passed on for this after Price had demonstrated he wasn't willing to obey the authority who could have otherwise been held responsible by us. He took the act and responsibility for it into his own hands. With the deaths out of the way, what remains is basically a storm of dysfunction within command, and the actual act of disobeying the order. Gallagher and Price were reprimanded for these things. Both of them acknowledged that it happened and that it was an explicit act, either in their logs or in the interviews. Evans was similarly reprimanded for failing to assert command over his Heads of Staff, and for recklessly endangering himself as a high-value employee. Jawdat's involvement in the round was handled as an OOC issue, and as a matter of staff policy we do not apply IC and OOC punishments for the same actions. There is no comparison to make here on this point. With the above in mind, it was clear to us that Price had the heaviest responsibility for the consequences of the round, and therefore received the heaviest IC consequences out of the group. I think that it was a reasonable assessment, and at the moment I'm not inclined to modify it. Secondly, concerning the restrictions placed upon you as a player: At the moment, you, CampinKiller, have an OOC obligation not to log Marc Price in as a working crew member aboard the Aurora. That is the extent of what is explicitly defined by the action applied to that character. Here is what it does not do: 1. You are not server banned. You are free to log in and play whoever you like, in whatever role you like, so long as it is not that one named person, in an on-duty role. 2. You are not job banned. You are free to join in a security role on anyone else, because the restriction is IC and applies to a character, not you as a player. 3. You are not prevented from playing Marc Price. You are allowed to board the station in a visiting capacity to continue to develop or characterize him, in a way that does not involve his security roles. Some people even use suspensions like this as springboards for development arcs. I don't think that the above amounts to you being 'completely annihilated' because it effectively leaves you as a player untouched. If you miss the server, it is still available to you. If you miss the security gameplay, it is still available to you. If you miss the character, he's still available to you. If you cannot accept those conditions and insist that we've been unnecessarily harsh with you, I would say that to a degree, this is you creating some of your own hardship. Compared to someone who has lost a whitelist or been banned, I believe that these are softer measures, which is just about where we want to land in CCIA. Finally, concerning the notion that canon events are supposed to be fun: I entirely agree, and that starts with the people playing in them. It's worth noting here that no-one in this round would have landed in any IC trouble had the involved players managed to simply play through the event, let alone attempted to work through their problems with one another during it. We were not proactively monitoring this round, ready to leap on people who broke protocol during an emergency. We were asked to arbitrate the events of the shift by all four of you. You, specifically, made two reports to target different facets of the events. When looking not to be reported yourself, comments such as these don't do you any favors: In fact, they encourage other players to make good on their own threats, instead of just working with you face-to-face. I recognize that you were not the only one engaged in doing this, but the actions of others shouldn't be used as an excuse to give it back, either. You were also previously a member of this team, and so I hope that you're already aware of how filing counter-complaints is not a productive process. I feel that your behavior is just as much to blame as anyone else's for the existence of the IC investigation, and that investigation has now concluded. When you all request that staff investigate a situation, you are effectively telling us that you either won't or can't handle your issues with others, and would prefer that we take the judgement and resolution of those issues into our own hands. As a third party, you can expect that we will examine each individual's behavior and determine what we can, regardless of the information originally submitted. Then, we're going to talk about and act on it, in place of the people who handed it off to us. That is what I believe we did, here. I think that covers most of what I originally wanted to say.