Synnono

I'm not super interested in addressing this as IC policy right now. As written, the directive requires that someone responsible for the area give permission for the change. If you have an issue with non-standard tile coloration on one specific facility in Tau Ceti, you should be taking it up with the people aboard that facility who gave that permission, not sector administration. Either that, or it's a maintenance drone and you can beat it with a stick and ask engineering to fix the issue. If your concern is that it is adversely affecting your health OOC, or that the behavior breaks the spirit of OOC rules in any way, please raise that with administrators. The station directives are generally meant to be IC guidelines.

This story did a good job of helping people rediscover the significance of permanent character death in roleplay, in a game where cloning vats and non-canon rounds tend to completely devalue it. Unlike many lore arcs, this one was also directly relevant to most of the crew on the station, making it a good choice for the server in general. People Who Weren't Security finally got to contribute to the progress and outcome of the story, and people created a lot of good, organic interactions with the information they had. It was pretty engaging for those who chose to engage with it. Unfortunately, the events of the epilogue had the side effect of taking much of the satisfaction of the solved case away from players, which is not ideal in a group RP. I feel like a twist like the mistrial and assassination would have been better served in a standalone story or single-player experience. It's often nothing but frustrating when the group is made to feel like one person undid all their work, which I think is where much of the dissatisfaction with the ending comes from.

This report is being closed due to the reporting party's inactivity. Please review the rules and guidelines post in this subforum, and if you have any questions, feel free to message me here on the forums or on Discord at Synnono#2558.

Lilah is indeed good people, and I appreciate that she's had experience on a previous server. Someone positive and helpful is the sort of staff I like to see and always wish we had more of. There are times for mods, though, when being positive and helpful may not help you carry out some staff duties. How do you handle having to be hard on someone?

We'll be handling the conduct reported in this IR alongside a headmin as an OOC issue, due to the staff members involved and current CCIA guidelines. This thread will be archived.

Generally speaking I'm supportive of this. IAAs are loyalty implanted and whitelisted, and abuse of this ability would be reportable and subject them to either IC scrutiny or whitelist scrutiny. This ability would empower agents to arbitrate employee disputes as I would like to see them be able to, without having to always filter decisions through Central Command.

It's a little unfortunate that these distinctions are sort of happening in reverse; IPCs presently enjoy greater recognition as legal entities than they did in the past, and it makes more sense now than it did then for regulations to treat some of them like the rest of the crew. That said, they aren't there yet, and I know some people would like to make the distinction on paper. We also don't have a clean system in place for discerning between IPCs that are entirely owned by the company and those that are somehow contracted to work there via an external owner or other means. To my mind, it would currently be easier to only make changes that can apply to all IPC characters. There's some thinking to do. I'm adding a vote for dismissal in terms of the suggestion as presented, but can bring this up separately with [mention]CakeIsOssim[/mention] and [mention]kyres1[/mention] later on, if they have a specific vision for something similar. Right now, I think the way offenses against machine characters are interpreted is 'sufficient' pending further contribution from lore devs.

Sorry for letting this sit. I was interpreting this more as a server policy thread than a purely regulation policy thread. Right now, there seems to be a fair bit of disagreement with the thoughts laid out in the original suggestion. As things stand, the command vote on the punishment applies a minimum of consideration by whitelisted players as to how appropriate it is to implement case-by-case. I also agree with Sytic's view that this interaction does provide some worthwhile roleplay and conflict. Those things wouldn't be improved if we removed the punishment, they'd just be gone. While I prefer the idea of not applying it for things like attempted murder (as opposed to actual murder), right now I don't see an issue with leaving it to command discretion. If common sense does not prevail, the behavior of those command players can be reviewed. Adding my vote for dismissal.

This may be overambitious, but with a little extra reworking, could it possible to use a color picker for both the energy pixels of the suit and the weaponry...? Like deadly, deadly turtleneck sweaters? That way it always matches, and almost everything looks good on black.

These look great Kyres, well done. Is the green on the suits complimentary to the color of the ninja's energy weapons? That would be the only aesthetic question I have at the moment.

As much as I vowed in Discord never to make a Directive 10, I'm generally supportive of this. I need to think about exactly how I'd like something like this to be worded. Looking forward to seeing more input here from the command/security perspective as well.

It's amazing. I love it. I want one.

TRAITOR. Just kidding, hiya Synth. Obligatory question: Do you feel you will have better availability this school year than you did last year? Do you anticipate leaving the team the next time you have tests if accepted?

This was presented as a development suggestion and not a policy suggestion, so my input is a bit limited in regards to supporting or rejecting it. However, I don't see the mechanical benefit to removing this access. The IAA office alone does not come with the access to security records IAAs should have access to, and I don't have an issue at all with agents using the station announcement console like a Head of Staff can. They may provide a service to the crew and that is a valid way to project it. If a Captain would rather they not use it, they have the authority to order them not to. Additionally, agents are authorized to use the emergency broadcast system to contact Central Command, and the bridge is really the only place they can go to operate it. The shuttle seating thing feels strictly like an issue of ego between Command and IA, which in my opinion isn't a great reason to push for dev changes. If anything, just toss a seat somewhere for them to sit down, and then there's suddenly no problem.

Dominia has about as many logical holes as most other minor factions, but it also has the unfortunate distinction of being associated with an enduring meme developed last year. At this point, the current Dominia does not resemble the Dominia that the original player thought up and used in their backstory. That version was a bit silly by comparison, while this version has had many hours of thought and community input put into it. I would be alright with the high-level feel of this faction if its name was changed to something other than "Dominia." I feel that keeping the old name immortalizes the joke of the original faction, which people mocked for months until Zundy decided to try and take it seriously as they transitioned to staff. At best, keeping the name takes that player's original idea and steals it to create something else without their permission, and at worst it just keeps the ridicule of the original idea alive. We should not be doing either of these things as staff, in my opinion.

The incident with the trespassing and attempted removal of the body (what resulted in the report) took place after a de-escalation to code green, about forty minutes after security responded to the hostile incident in medical, according to the log. In interviews, the alert condition was confirmed by medical staff, indicating a gap in time for the station to de-escalate from code red, to code blue, to code green. There are radio communications from Gonzales asking his staff whether anyone permitted Grimm to enter the sub-level after he was discovered at this time, to which none of them replied that they did. Grimm's interaction with Scherer was initiated strictly on the basis of Scherer wanting to inform him that he shouldn't be here, and that he should leave. Gonzales conferred with Head of Personnel Bright, (the only other active Head, it seems) as to whether the trespassing charge was appropriate to press, to which it replied it was up to Gonzales' judgement. Bright also messaged Grimm in response to Grimm's request for an arrest warrant on Gonzales, saying that Gonzales has the right to deny him access to the medbay as CMO. Whether or not any of the medical staff or the HoP was in the right with the above, it does not appear that there was much to suggest that Grimm had sought appropriate permission to enter the area, or communicated his intentions to move the bodies he had attempted to move. It all took place much later in the round than the immediate security response and direct cleanup. The record-able communications supported medical's interpretation of events, and contributed to my review and approval of UM's summary/resolution to the incident.

This is a big post, and I'm sure the rest of it will be addressed as we go, but I did want to mention here: Yes, these rules were updated while your second appeal was open. I did that because the subforum is supposed to be used in a manner similar to the unban requests forum, and the CCIA appeals subforum as it was before did not effectively communicate that. Generally, players making those unban/action appeals are (supposed to be) demonstrating that they are ready to be unbanned/have an action lifted because they understand why it was placed and have corrected the behavior that caused it. If I did not put the updated rules up, people would keep using the subforum to just argue the decisions. If you want to disagree with a staff member's decision, this forum is a more appropriate place to do that. Note that while my CCIABS character writes coldly and is potentially unpleasant to correspond with, you should not be taking the things in her letters as some sort of personal attack on you as a player. She can put whatever tone she likes into a reply, but it's still me at the end of the day considering which actions to adjust and which to leave based on my own guidelines, OOC factors and the disposition of team members and our admin partners. We do generally discuss these cases as a group, for sanity-checking purposes. In both of your appeals, the actions were never eligible to be appealed by the guidelines I had set for them. Since those guidelines had not been posted by the time I had closed your first appeal, I put them up before closing the second, in order to explain the expectations on our side to anyone going forward. Regarding reprimands, they are effectively the CCIA equivalent of notes and warnings (which also stick to a player in most circumstances), and inform the staff member looking at a someone a couple of months from now that an incident occurred. Notes on CCIA records reflect the decisions of a case at the time it was resolved, along with any note of appeal or modifications resulting from one. We would not generally consider removing these notes, as they reference canon events. IRs have always occupied an uncomfortable space between IC reports and OOC requests to moderate a character's behavior, and how they're handled on our side often comes down to how players and characters are behaving themselves around them. When it's two people who are generally on good terms with each other OOC, and whose characters may have intentionally misbehaved or gotten into a fight to push a story and a report comes out of it, it can almost be looked at as just a roleplaying tool. When one is submitted because a player thinks another player is doing something wrong, and it comes down to a choice between a "realistic" in-world complaint resolution process and attempting to moderate behavior we as a staff team do not find desirable, we are generally going to go for the latter. Going to give some of the team time to post their thoughts where they are involved.

This IC appeal is being closed because it does not satisfy the updated appeal requirements. Please review the subforum rules, and keep in mind that IC appeals are intended for valid and acknowledged long-term actions that place severe restrictions on character behavior. If you would like to dispute the decisions of the staff members involved in an OOC format, you may do so here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=36

Both the general forum rules and the Incident Report subforum rules also apply to this subforum. Only post if you are personally appealing a CCIA action applied to your character. These threads are in-character, confidential correspondences between the affected character and the CCIA Appeals Processing office. Disclosing the contents of these threads to other characters may result in IC penalties against the disclosing character. You may appeal for a case review, or for clemency. In the first case, the IR procedure followed by the agent is reviewed to determine if the correct approach was taken, and if the actions taken are appropriate. In the second case, you admit your character was in the wrong, and appeal to get a penalty reduced. If neither satisfy you, you should make an OOC staff complaint. Do not appeal minor CCIA actions. This includes both formal and informal reprimands, and other actions with a duration of one week or less. CCIA appeals are intended for long-term actions that place severe restrictions on a character's behavior. Remember that unlike a ban, in most cases, a CCIA action does not prevent you from playing your character in a round. Do not post appeals for Incident Reports that have not yet been closed. There will be nothing to review and you will feel silly. All appeal rulings are final when they are declared. Contract Terminations may not be appealed. If you believe your termination was unfair or invalid you will need to make an OOC staff complaint.