Synnono

It's always uncomfortable to try and retroactively enforce a societal standard, especially on facilities in space, far far away from the conflicts and cultural norms of that society. I don't see a reason why humans should care which subspecies of Tajara get to do what, so long as the candidate proves they can do the job. It's a bit different for other species - Vaurca have their brain-damaged drones (and are extremely new and untrusted in this part of the galaxy), and machines are generally purpose-built in a way that restricts them, but until relatively recently, a Tajara was a Tajara. To a human, one looks more or less like another. Why do some end up in the favor of NT while others don't? I don't really think any of the factions on Adhomai have enough leverage against NT to impose a kind of unspoken restriction like this. If the changes aren't being written in that way from the lore side, then they seem like they'll be developed in on the dev side to underscore the idea that players must play out a clumsy racial conflict, regardless of whether or not that is why they're interested in the race. While people with the whitelist can and should be aware of the believability issues that surround exceptions to the rules, it's up to them to demonstrate that, whether or not they play someone following those rules. It's also up to the lore team whether or not to permit it, and to maintain their understanding of the characters they curate. I'd prefer no changes, mostly because I can't rationalize them. I think that forcing societal issues onto people at the character creation screen or config will generally result in more poorly-played conflict, not more worthwhile or enjoyable conflict. Any changes would also affect pre-existing characters, as other people have pointed out in the thread. If whitelistees do not engage themselves with the lore of their whitelist to a satisfactory standard, there is already a system in place for handling that. Sorting out exceptions to the rules indiscriminately feels lazy on our part, and for no apparent gain.

This has sat without fermenting any more. I'm gonna go ahead and say sure, we can update this reg's penalties to match its non-security counterpart. Moving it to accepted.

Given that you can already contribute to the code (and do so, extensively), why do you want to be on the dev team?

Because the conflict that caused this IR was the result of direct antagonist interaction, it is being closed. If you believe the player or character's behavior was sufficiently inappropriate, you may still file a player or character complaint here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=35

This incident report is being closed, as the reported character no longer exists. If the same character is re-created following the closure of this report, it should be ahelped when you see it.

Right now I don't really see why we couldn't do this. Presumably, we're fans of internal consistency. Going to leave this open for any opposing viewpoints for a couple more days, though.

Responses inline: As of now, I don't really want to change my position on this, and I don't really want to keep going back and forth with you, either. If [mention]Sharp[/mention], [mention]Garnascus[/mention] or [mention]Skull132[/mention] would like to implement this or some form of this and ask me to do it, I will, but I do not personally think that we need it. Regs and policy are messy, and while that is often the result of too many cooks in the kitchen over too much time, it is also occasionally intentionally vague. When conflicts can be prompted that require players to interact with each other, plan, or sort out differences, it's a good thing right up until it's not.

Officers have guidelines empowering them to act on their own to stop immediate threats to the station, in the form of detaining people breaking serious regulations. The CSI should never be placed in a situation where he or she should autonomously have a need to conduct a forensic investigation. They gather information for other people to process, like the detective does, at the direction of other people. If no-one is there to enable them, and they can't work with command or the rest of the crew to get what they need, they might be SOL. But I believe they should be attempting to work with command and the crew, rather than relying on the IC rules holding everyone else in the round at bay.

I feel as though this comes up a lot in these threads, but security is not the police or an extension of the federal judiciary. There is typically no coroner empowered by a judiciary aboard to make the above determinations, and the CSI's work is done under the direction of the Head of Security, who should be the one determining the need for forensic investigations. You can already do anything you need to do by communicating with Command.

Hi Moony. I'll be adding my personal thoughts on the proposed changes. Keep in mind throughout all of this that the note to wait for cloning on the CSI job guide is written from an OOC standpoint out of consideration for other players' time, and is not representative of IC "standard procedure" in the game world, which is what you are suggesting be changed here. As a default policy, this does not strike me as realistic. While meta-knowledge of the game and experience on server may tempt a player to assume that every death is a suspicious death requiring security intervention, this is not always the case. From the standpoint of 'normal' operations, which in-world policies should ideally be written for, it seems undesirable that most workplace deaths should be treated as suspicious. If there is reason to believe that a security investigation is needed, that need should be communicated through the appropriate command staff, and considerations can made at that level for evidence gathering between security and other departments. What I am inferring from this is that you would like security to be able to completely carry out an investigation before releasing the body to medical or other personnel. I don't like this because it would tie up the body (and the player who was in it) for an indeterminate period of time, depending on the staff responding, their workload, competency, and priorities, and whether or not a wizard just fireballed the forensics lab. And that's BEFORE we go through all the same things with medical, and whether or not the wizard just fireballed the medbay. If it was determined that a security investigation was necessary before any medical procedures or other safety concerns should be addressed, and it is communicated to the crew not to disturb the body on the scene, this charge can probably already be applied via arrest warrant. It would be "hindering the efforts of the crew" to contaminate the scene at that point. The rest of the process either doesn't change much, or seems to restate what was already proposed. Issues that arise between Security and Medical in regards to corpses most often arise due to miscommunication, or a complete lack of it. In the IR you submitted concerning these issues, you were told that custody of a corpse is circumstantial based on what's happening around it, and I more or less agree with that. Implementing this process for corpse handling as written would place a procedural barrier between all characters and cloning 100% of the time, in exchange for making one character's role easier to play, some of the time. The wiki team can review the specific wording of the sentence on the job guide, but it is not indicative of IC policy. Voting to dismiss this.

Application accepted. Welcome to the team!

Brief thoughts re: murder versus attempted murder: It would make sense to leave the punishment strictly to murder in a truer legal environment, as most legal systems take consequences of an action into account as well as the intent and action itself. However, I think cyborgification already serves a purpose in its current role, as a charge that can be 'legitimately' abused for an in-round roleplay purpose. It is an outrageous thing to condemn someone to, and authorizing it under questionable circumstances (as traitorous or Loyalist command, etc.) is almost guaranteed to provoke some sort of conflict. It's already rare in the first place, and I don't think it really needs to be harder to do at the moment. The issues of security applying 'attempted murder' when they should not, or non-antag Command pushing hard for it to be used needlessly seems a little separated from the issue of the punishment itself. If I were to make a change at all, I would consider making the command vote for cyborgification required to be unanimous, letting any objecting head veto it. This would define it as the more severe of the two possibilities and require all senior staff members to agree to proceed, without making it less applicable to regulations than it already is.

This IR is being closed for violating IR submission rules: In this case, simply listening to a complaint and passing it up the chain is not considered an effort to resolve the issue. If you feel the player's conduct was sufficiently unbelievable or inappropriate, you may still post a character or player complaint here: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewforum.php?f=35