Synnono

After giving this a couple days to generate some positive feedback, it seems not to have any. Also voting for dismissal.

I agree with this sentiment, but I edited the thread title back since basically it's me, Nursie and Garn/Abo/Skull who can dismiss reg suggestions per the subforum rules. I'm not going to vote for a while to see if other discussion is generated.

I don't see a reason why Animal Cruelty wouldn't apply to this. Knowingly not feeding a departmental pet to the point of starvation implies a degree of malicious intent. Also, animals being able to horf down like ten deep-fried steaks and be hungry 40 minutes later is a bit of a meme. Do we really want to regulate for this?

If the suggestion is simply to clean up the wording, we can roll that into our next clump of regulations issues to look at. Right now we might move toward standardizing "theft" of both money and items across all three levels of severity, but we will see where that discussion takes us when we talk gameplay with other staff teams. Since this is on our radar now, I'll be archiving this thread in the accepted subforum.

Locking and archiving this at Elohi's request.

Locking and archiving this at Elohi's request.

Locking and archiving this at Elohi's request.

This is more or less why I am opposed to this. It has a similar feel to the suggestion that proposed letting security officers authorize their own warrants. Regulations and authorizations are arguably in place to provide a framework for security to do their jobs within. Adding "catch-alls" for situations that would otherwise control security behavior leaves officers free to do as they please, and opens up extra potential for player abuse. Having something on the books like this allows a bad officer to note someone they don't like near a crime scene, tag them twice with the regulation during the investigation, and get them demoted. The proposed punishments would not even stop that person from coming back and continuing to obstruct security in the event that they ARE actually obstructing them. In a perfect world, good officers would only use something like Obstruction of Justice when it is valid and necessary. My feeling is that it wouldn't work that way in practice, and there are other tools available for an officer to get a troublesome person away from an investigation. Also, as a side note, security is not the police and does not exist to mete out justice, despite the memes. We'd want to change the name to something else if we kept this. The above is my two cents on this. I posted this thread to the CCIA team Discord channel last week, and asked them to contribute here with any thoughts about this. As none seem to have any, and all I have is my own opinion to put down, right now I'm voting for dismissal.

I'm not really feeling this either. There's no need to formalize reading someone their rights as private security. You're there to enforce regulations and protect assets, not be the police. The rights of your co-workers are detailed in the terms of their contract, which they can review with HR if there is some sort of issue. Security has enough trouble following the procedures that are already in place, and adding more process to an arrest seems like mostly a good way to trip up more officers on more technicalities. I don't feel that's terribly additive to the game. Edit: I do, however, appreciate the pun potential for 'Miranda' rights. But, only if the rights themselves are absurdly restrictive and not very rights-y at all. Double Edit: Meant to put a dismissal vote in here. Whoops. If you wanna say something like this informally, feel free. I'm not really interested in making it formal policy.

Adding my two cents, as this complaint seems to focus a bit on the purpose, perception of, and intent behind the IR: Generally speaking, an IR can be posted if there was a serious incident or disagreement that could not be resolved in the round, either due to the round ending before that can happen, or because security or the station's chain of command are unable to effectively address the issue (say, perhaps, because they are involved). In this case, the sentence in the incident report that indicates the issue is this: I agree that IRs should not be submitted for petty things. However what is or is not petty is determined by the CCIA team and their modmin liaisons. If this complaint hadn't popped up, we likely would have gone ahead and processed this one for the reasons in the previous paragraph. Depending on the outcome of the complaint, we might still do that. We are attempting to move away from IRs that seem like a purely IC dislike of someone, or something that security or command could have definitively resolved. While you don't believe that there is an issue to resolve as "nothing came" of the trading threats, they were sufficient for a character to raise questions about your character's competency and understanding of regulations, and to provide examples of why. For clarity's sake, you do not need to wait for an extended round. In the worst case scenario, an agent has picked someone up for an Odin interview at the 2:00 mark during an antag round. It is not how I would recommend scheduling one, but it worked for them that time. You are also not obligated to show up to these as a player, which is one key difference between IRs and Player Complaints. If you do not have the interest in having your character defend herself, or don't believe that the issue is important enough to make time for, you may have her decline to interview. It does reflect poorly on a character who does that, as an IC consequence for an IC decision, and I think it should. You are not necessarily busier than anyone you have reported in an IR of your own. The modmins who review logs, notes and warnings for antag and OOC issues, the staff member(s) doing the interviews, the players of (usually) everyone named in the report, and myself are all putting in their time as well, and have their own lives and jobs. But if you really don't want to, then don't. At the end of the day, you're not going to get a warning for it unless whatever happened is deemed a serious OOC issue, and you're not going to get a character fired unless they murdered someone, or did something otherwise as serious or unbelievable. Fernando the character is a complete jerk (he, by comparison, has had five IRs reporting him as an offender since March) but his actions should not automatically indicate Resilynn being "incredibly mean-spirited" as a player. Gonzales didn't like what your character did or threatened to do, had a reason to report it to Central, and did. How he chose to report it (in a manner you consider to be demonizing) will not matter to the agent character conducting an investigation. We look for objective misconduct on all sides of an incident, and will act on that misconduct, not based on whoever wrote the report getting some first word in. I think it is a serious thing, to see an IC report and to immediately accuse the reporting player of maliciously using the server's staff against you. As far as my opinion there is concerned, I don't think that has been illustrated yet, by either Resilynn's general behavior as a player, or their history of posts in these subforums.

This doesn't seem like a complete or satisfactory answer to me. Can you expand on this? What does 'control' mean to you? Do Heads have any OOC responsibility outside of knowing what a department is capable of? In the context of the question, you are being asked what your responsibilities are to other players. What would those people playing characters look to you for?

Accepted as of 4/27. Welcome (back) to the team!

I have never witnessed Tailson lose their cool, and I think they generally maintain a good/constructive presence both as a character and as a player in a given round. While I can't understand why they seem willing to subject themselves to the rigors of being moderation staff, I'd be happy to see them get a shot at it.

This is the correct way to address concerns you have about a staff decision regarding an OOC rule being broken, yes. In my opinion, a character complaint is the correct way to start a discussion about a character with qualities that may not fundamentally fit the setting, or the game. It's also usually the best way to involve the player of that character in the process, which I think has been helpful in the past.

Hi Ornias. I hope you are well! Regarding your message here, it should be noted that situations like this often require CCIA's best OOC judgement in regards to "how much antag involvement is too much antag involvement?" When an IR is submitted more as a character complaint, we would consider that character's behavior while obfuscating as much of the antagonist detail as possible. It is entirely possible to be reported for behavior witnessed during a mostly non-canon situation. For example, if a traitor bombs research and kills someone, and then medical royally screws up the cloning treatment and gets reported for it, it is likely that we would process that IR and go forward with an investigation. The bombing would just be referenced as some sort of accident or other emergency rather than a terror act. In this situation, being told to 'hunt someone down' by a superior and being handed a lethal weapon doesn't have to be in the context of a ninja attack. Maybe it's a false alarm, or a convincing drill, or an unknown threat that turns out to be a really ominous-looking carp. Refusing in any of those situations would be acceptable cause for IC review if a co-worker objected and couldn't resolve it in the round. The observable behavior was between two non-antags, and while they were certainly in a stressful situation, the antagonist can probably be removed from it in the retelling and leave the behavior intact. The belief of the presence of a threat requiring lethal force is all that was required to force this scenario. We also work with admins who may have handled ahelps like the one in this complaint before we even start, to see whether a case was handled OOC, or whether it should be handled OOC due to antag involvement. If they say that it really is an IC issue, that feeds into our decision making process. With all that said it seems as though [mention]Icuris[/mention] is taking issue with Poehl's behavior as somehow unbelievable, which was the cause for the original ahelp. In this case, it is not necessarily a character reporting another character, but a player believing that another player is not roleplaying believably. Due to that, I feel like maybe a character complaint would have been more appropriate than either this staff complaint or an IR, to address the original concern. If the character is not necessarily breaking a rule in the moment but exhibits a trait that seems fundamentally flawed to me, that would be the place I would talk about it.

This should be moved to policy suggestions when possible. I'll take a look soon.

Interview with the applicant:

Alrighty. It's been a week and a half and I don't know if boot has comments to add. The CCIA team has also expressed an interest in developing this regulation and it is likely to be implemented. The exact phrasing and severity of offenses are likely to be tweaked, based on lore team feedback here and in future internal discussion. Going to go ahead and move this to accepted, since it's on our radar now. Not locking it just yet.

On trial as of 4/20. Blaze it.

You're an ancient name here and have filled several roles (including mine). There's more to get into, but as a couple of quick thoughts: 1. Why do you feel that CCIA is the best avenue to enhance player experience? 2. Can you talk about your hiatus a bit, for the folks who might not know you or why you left?