Synnono

[This field intentionally left blank]

Posting in here at Garn's request. To clarify on how we've handled LIs in the past, if the character is not working, we generally assume that the loyalty implant is not functioning. Following this thinking, Campin would have been able to play a disingenuous character if they had joined as a visitor without violating any of our policies or some sort of OOC trust. This interpretation may change at some point, but that's more of a team discussion with CCIA and admins. Xander is also correct in that it's currently our policy to "allow" dishonest behavior from characters, and that the consequences for lying are typically severe. In most cases, this is a very bad idea for the involved character, since witnesses and logs tend to easily highlight inconsistencies. Dishonesty was brought up as a possibility on our side even before Jackboot became aware of the information that led to this complaint. I see the decision to lie as an IC concern, but the discussion about the function of loyalty implants in the roleplay and the intentions of the players involved seem to be OOC concerns, which is why I encouraged a complaint.

Adrae conducts themselves well both in and out of game, and I echo Doxx's comments about their roleplay (though for me it's generally watching terrible things happen to Weisgarber). Much of the trickier bits of playing command have to do with policy and procedure that may not always be readily apparent to newer players, but they can be learned. This is certainly a player I'd like to see try a command role.

Interview with the applicant:

Specifically, my thoughts on the matter are summarized by this: There is an IC reprimand on the character for actions they took in a certain command role. As far as CCIA goes, this is the end of that particular issue until a new issue creates a pattern of behavior. There is no OOC policy in place preventing a command character from joining the round as a Captain (as their whitelist allows them to do), and there is no staff policy in place that otherwise encourages us in CCIA to restrict characters who have been reprimanded for any reason from doing so. The reporting player's disposition is that a character with this reprimand joining as a captain is not believable, which makes it an OOC character believability issue per the server's rules.

Trial started as of 7/23.

Trial started as of 7/23.

Trial started as of 7/23.

After review, this IR is being closed. The behavior of the reported party was the direct result of antag interaction, and isn't being kept canon. If you would like to instead file a character or player complaint, you may still do so here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=35

We've referred this to the mod team as an OOC issue. Command staff, CMOs particularly, should already be aware of the cloning policy. This report will now be closed.

Hello again Untold. After talking it over with a few of us, I'll be denying this application. The biggest factor here is your lack of experience on the server. I don't think you've had time to really determine whether you'd like to stick around as a player with only a month here, let alone to realize whether you want to volunteer your free time on a staff team. We also would like more time to see you for ourselves; there's a significant time investment associated with being in any staff group, and we just don't know enough about you or your habits as a player to take a guess at how active or present you'll be. CCIA specifically also needs its members to have a strong understanding of rules, regulations, policy and station directives, since we're expected to know where to draw the line between IC and OOC violations, and to address the IC ones. Your admin records indicate you're still learning some of this stuff, and I worry that you're not quite comfortable enough with it all to be applying to our team yet. Feel free to re-apply in the future. I'll be locking this thread and archiving it shortly, but you can PM me with any questions.

Interview with the applicant:

Interview with the applicant:

Interview with the applicant:

Hi there, UntoldTactics. Thank you for your interest and application. I'm glad you call out your new arrival to the server, because I think that is my biggest concern at the moment. Our web interface shows your first login as being a tiny bit less than one month old on June 15th, and while it's not unheard of for people to join the community and quickly become interested in the staff team, we do want to make sure you know what you're getting into. Keeping in mind that your primary responsibilities would not involve world-building as a CCIA staff member, what did you mean when you wrote that being on the team would "allow you to aid in the shaping of the lore?" What sorts of liberties do you imagine we have to do that?

Just chiming in here as the person who applied this suspension: The disciplinary action taken was due to Harper's assault of a Head of Staff during a lore event. As far as CCIA is concerned, being suspended means she is not allowed to come to work and get paid for it until she's satisfied the requirements imposed by the suspension. If the character joins as a Visitor and does not access areas or equipment that they should only be accessing on the job, then the character probably isn't violating the suspension. If the mod team wants to interpret someone cleaning the floor with soap for free as "playing Janitor" when the character is not taking up the Janitor job slot, then that is a separate issue. In terms of IC rules, though, Harper probably would have been okay in this instance. As an afterthought, when attempting to enforce these CCIA actions at the OOC level, I feel that there's an appreciable difference between someone who's been restricted from a largely-roleplayed job slot, and one with a job that tends to have a significant impact on the flow of a round, like one in security or engineering. In my opinion, a warning would be appropriate for a suspended officer who grabs a security headset and goes on patrol for antags while visiting the station. In this case though, I think the character's behavior deserves a closer look.

Thanks for your interest in the team and for submitting your application. However, after consideration I've decided to deny it. My primary concern with you is the way you've handled disagreements or complaints with other community members and staff in the past. I think that you've shown you don't always stay level-headed when things don't go your way. The handful of times you've abruptly "quit" the community due to a conflict or disagreement is neither representative of ideal staff conduct, nor a possibility I would like to have to plan around as someone organizing a team. You also have a considerable disciplinary record, and while that isn't disqualifying, I don't believe you've been back long enough to demonstrate that you've improved on the things called out in it. While the past doesn't necessarily define who you are going forward here, I think it would be best for you to spend some more time as an active player to demonstrate that you've changed since then, and that you're capable of being objective with players, respectful with staff, and emotionally detached from conflicts. Volunteering on this team will often put you into some sort of conflict with someone, and handling that appropriately and fairly is an essential part of what we do. I'll be locking this thread and archiving it shortly, but feel free to DM me with any questions.

If we ever implemented a persistent economy I'd be willing to revisit this, as we would need moneysinks badly. But as things stand now, this suggestion takes the parole function that the Captain, HoS and Warden already possess and grants it to anyone with loads of money, which is not ideal. The mechanical punishment of a brig sentence shouldn't necessarily be a problem you can pay away, and most of the infractions you could pay your way out of do not have terribly long brig timers in the first place. It's neither here nor there, but if this were ever to be implemented, it would likely not be in the form of a Station Directive. We would probably just format the wiki's regulation page to reflect the new system. Voting to dismiss this, but it's a thought for the future if we ever revisit persistent bank accounts.