Arrow768

I do not see much point in continuing the part of the discussion regarding xeno XOs as it was opened by certain people stating how xeno XOs make up most of the characters, which was then quickly disproved. Now the claim is that they didn’t mean all XOs but only „well established“ XOs. (Without defining what „well established“ means) I could now get and post the number of rounds grouped by character. But I don’t see the point in that, as I am sure the same people will shift the goalposts again. (Most likely by re-defining „well established“) Another quite common theme in this thread is that the XO at the moment has some sort of authority and this policy reduces that. At the moment the XO has exactly the same authority over departments under a different head of staff that every head of staff has: absolutely zero. Currently other department heads are well within their rights to tell the XO to take a long walk and come back with orders by the (acting) captain if they try to tell them to do something. With the reg change that completely changes. Heads of staff are expected to comply without undue delay with the orders of the XO as soon as they Mutter the magic words: „I am currently carrying out the orders of the acting captain“. The recitals specifically mention the ability of the acting captain to delegate tasks to the xo without spelling out every detail of it. (For example it can be a „run the ship while I go on a away mission / …“ And with that the XO is effectively in command of the ship. I believe it also needs to be pointed out that there is no requirement, that such orders need to be stated in public or on the command channel for them to be valid. -> if a xo comes up to a head of staff and tells them to do something (because they are carrying out the orders or wishes of the acting captain) the head of staff is expected to execute them without undue delay. (And yes, trying to check with the captain if those are actually their wishes is undue delay)

This is again my personal opinion. I do not see why xeno characters who were XOs cant keep that in their employment history, they are just assigned to another suitable position. In my opinion it is quit obvious that if we expand the XO to have the same access and knowledge of ship systems and quite similar powers to the captain, that the hiring standards/restrictions will also be updated to relect that. It is not possible to explain why we would trust someone with the most guarded secrets of the ship, as well as working in a position that is designed to train captain candidates but never trust them enough to become captain. The hiring policies are already specist. (Not racist, as there is no differentiation between "races" and only between "species"). This has never changed.

I have seen various claims such as this in this topic. Below you can see the number of XO Rounds played per species from the time the topic was created until today. As you can see that claim is not backed up by existing facts.

This is also a TBD, so that is my personal view: Ultimately Service is a department that runs itself. Its rare that the XO needs to step in to actually manage something there. So it could either remain as is or rolled into the OM. I dont think that there is enough content at this time for a dedicated service manager role.

Regarding Xeno XOs: Yes, this is a final decision and we will not make another vote regarding Xeno XOs. Xeno XOs will not happen, as this would open the door to xeno Captains, which is definitly not wanted. -> It is not possible to explain why a Xeno XO is trusted with the self destruct code, the same access that a captain has and to advise other heads of staff in non-standard emergency situations but not trusted enough to be promoted to captain eventually from a role that is designed to train people to become captain.

This is something that we (headmins/devs + lore + ccia) still need to discuss, so the following is only my opinion and might change. There is no requirement that a captain on the Horizon has worked as XO on the Horizon, but it is strongly preferred.

The XO will know about the self destruct and how to activate it.

Originally, I wanted to post the results on the 1 year anniversary of the poll end. But then something came up that I had to take care of instead, so I had to postpone that. Within this topic there have been various views of how the 2IC XO should look like. We (Headadmins, Headdevs, Lore Masters, CCIA Lead) have discussed these views for a while can came up with the following regulation that will be put into effect within the next days (once the PR to implement that is merged). This are the IC-recitals and our OOC-considerations for them: (Recital as in: "Text at the start of an (EU) act that sets out the reasons for its operative provisions, while avoiding normative language and political argumentation." These recitals will be considered in the future when interpreting the above directive.) F.A.Q.: Q1: If the same hiring standards that are applied to the captain, are applied to the XO, what will happen to the existing xeno XOs? A1: They can be reassigned to another head of staff role. For example, Operations Manager. Q2: Will there be another poll about xeno XOs? A2: No. If a change gives the XO additional capabilities, it is logical that the job qualifications/requirements will also be updated accordingly. (Especially if they are supposed to become the trusted advisor of the acting captain)

Application accepted. Activity will be re-evauluated in a few months.

We should have the results available soon.

This suggestion is being archived as the relevant PR has been closed for the reasons stated in the PR

Has also been added and should be available next round.

As there has been no reply from @restricted this complaint will be closed without further action.

@restricted Unless there is anything else you would like to add I will close the complaint within 24h

Should be available next round in the operations category

I´ll handle this complaint as its a complaint against the CCIA Lead. Let's start out with the initial IR: First of all: I have not checked the logs of the round and I assume that what has been mentioned in the interviews/IR are actually facts. If that is not the case let me know. I believe that a reprimand for giving a PAI a law to "annoy" a single crew member ("Annoy Imogen Janse") is relatively mild punishment and it might have led to a whitelist removal if ahelped. In my opinion it is generally under the XOs purview to decide how to operate the Service department (if there is a fee for all or certain items or if certain items are served or not). However, I do agree with CCIA to curtail that authority if a specific XO shows poor judgement (in that regard). As such I believe the following reprimand to be warranted: Let's continue with the appeal: The first part to look at before posting in a subforum are the relevant subforum rules. In those subforum rules it is stated that this is a IC Format where your character appeals their punishment with a higher authority. With that in mind I have to agree with what bear said: Generally speaking, there are the following levels of IC Action by HR/CCIA: Informal Warning/Notice "Flavour Punishment" (i.e. "awareness training, ..." Reprimand (Temporary) Demotion optional: Suspension / other temporary removal from the ship Termination / Arrest / other permanent removal from the ship As you have already received a Reprimand and doubled down by sending "a mean letter", the next step is a (temporary) Demotion. I do not see how getting demoted to janitor after sending "a mean (ic) letter" like you did to CCIA is a "OOC Response to a IC action".

Appeal denied. You were given a choice between continuing to use a ckey with neo nazi symbolism and getting banned or changing your ckey (and not getting banned). You choose the neo nazi symbolism and the ban. As such you are not welcome here.

I do not think that the armor values of the suit need/should be increased from where they are right now. The captain should not get into a situation where these increased armor values are needed. After all, they have quite a few different people they can send into situations where a hostile encounter is likely. (i.e. HoS, XO, Bridge Crew, ...; depending on what needs doing) I also believe that having subpar armor and knowing that might encourage a captain to actually surrender and cooperate with the antags instead of high-tailing it out of a situation and tanking/ignoring the shots that connect.

The reason is that we have had people receive CCIA actions on their characters, then delete those characters and re-create them with the same name. We have also had some people that regularly renamed one of their slots and who would then end up with ccia actions / security incidents from the previous names on that character) In addition, quite a few things are based on the character id now adays. Preventing the same name from being re-used discourages behaviour that breaks that char-id-link.

As you can see the majority of the votes are in favour of it. So we keep the changes as they are. On a more serious note, there is a reason why we dont poll like that. If we want to poll this topic we will do it using our existing polling system.

I also want to point out that the pirates got that ship flying by themselves. I didnt spawn/modify it in any way to get it working, so they can take off from the pirate base (And looking at the map, there is everything on the base to get it flying)

We polled if people liked the round. Out of 23 people who voted 22 liked it. So I´d say the round was a success, even if it wasnt what people voted for. In addition, the vampire ahelped that they had to leave so it would have just been extended+

If you wish to provide feedback do it in the already existing topics in the suggestion forum. Creating yet another feedback topic is not helpful. Therefore I am binning this topic.

Closed and archived as requested by the OP.

This application has been un-archived as it was accepted within 30 minutes. This timeframe did not permit the required time for community feedback.