[2 Dismissals] Security/Medical authority over the deceased

[MO_oNyMan]

There's very little order in who is supposed to do what when dealing with dead bodies. Until recently i was under impression that when a dead body is found the standard procedure is as following: Security processes the scene -> medbay takes the body for attempted cloning -> if security needs autopsy done they requisition the body from medbay -> body gets back to medbay to be stored in morgue. This interpretation is based on forensics wiki guide (https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Forensic_Technician). More specifically the "Performing Autopsies" paragraph where it says in caps and bold ONLY PERFORM AUTOPSIES AFTER A CLONING ATTEMPT ON THE BODY HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. The logic behind it is that from an OOC standpoint players should be attempted to be brought back into the round as soon as possible and i partially agree.

I presumed the bold and capitalised mention of autopsy being performed after the cloning attempt is important and should be considered policy. However it seems to not be the case. In the recent CCIA ruling on an IR (https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=10899) it was stated that "As much of this incident was due to belief in non-existent policy, to clarify: Neither medical or security takes priority over a body, it is circumstantial, if security wishes to conduct a crime scene investigation, they should inform medical of such." . Which basically goes over existing guidelines.

So, considering the confusion surrounding this fairly common part of medical-security interactions and presuming the existing guidelines are outdated due to being ignored by the CCIA i'm suggesting to build new solid policy regardging authority over dead bodies from the ground-up.

- Deceased crewmembers are evidence and fall under jurisdiction of security

- Security takes over dead bodies and carries out all required for investigation procedures

- Removing a dead body from the crime scene is tampering with evidence and is considered sabotage

- After finishing all investigation-related procedures or after concluding that the death has no signs of foul play security discharges the body to medical for medical proceedings (such as cloning or storing)

- Injured (but not dead) personnel is still under the medical jurisdiction (as it was before)

This model is more realistic, it allows for a more efficient investigations and solves the problem of investigators and medics constantly bitching at each other over cadavers

When it comes for cons, this model obviously slows the cloning process of the characters. However a) Almost noone clones bodies since the psych update; b) Autopsy does not take an awful lot of time to perform; c) The guidelines of cloning required to be done before autopsy (forensic tech wiki) are ignored and not enforced anyways (as showcased by the IR)

So if the corresponding wiki pages (paramedic and forensics) could be updated to reflect this change that would be great

[Synnono]

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.

 

- Deceased crewmembers are evidence and fall under jurisdiction of security

 

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.

 

- Security takes over dead bodies and carries out all required for investigation procedures

 

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.

 

- Removing a dead body from the crime scene is tampering with evidence and is considered sabotage

 

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.

[MO_oNyMan]

This has been sitting for a while without feedback, so 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.

 

The wording (and font of choice) of it make it look like it's not optional. If a mandatory procedure can't be enforced ICly how does one even go about it? Consistency in IC and OOC guidelines is important here. Either make the guide say that autopsy comes first or make it an IC policy that one can enforce.

 

- Deceased crewmembers are evidence and fall under jurisdiction of security

 

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.

It's a station where people are not expected to die. A pretty safe setting. All crewmembers go through physical and psychological evaluations prior to getting employed. Any death is outstanding and assuming the worst in this case is hardly meta. Therefore to determine if it was accidental or not is up to the qualified professional (in this case CSI). When it comes to realism, here's a list of things that IRL require a coroner be called to look into the cause of death as it is by law is deemed suspicious by default:

- deaths that occur suddenly and unexpectedly (basically any death occuring on station barring death from viruses and poison)

- deaths at a construction or mining site (all miner accidents)

- deaths while in police custody or while a person is incarcerated in a correctional facility (all deaths of prisoners and detainees)

- deaths when the use of force by a police officer is the cause of death (deaths during arrests)

- deaths that appear to be the result of an accident, suicide or homicide (all "accidents", and obvious suicides and homicides)

- the person died while under anaesthetic or during a medical operation or procedure, or if the death appears to have been caused by the anaesthetic, operation or procedure (all deaths on a surgery table. Basically any death in medical)

- Death occurs within 24 hours of admission to a hospital during an acute or unexplained rapidly fatal illness, for which a reasonable natural cause has not been established; or, a person is admitted to the hospital in coma and dies within 24 hours without having regained consciousness (basically any critical patient that is hauled to medbay and poison)

Overall the picture is pretty clear. On station deaths that IRL would be considered "not suspicious" and wouldn't be investigated simply do not occur . I don't think people canonically die on station too often either. So it's pretty realistic to consider every death suspicious until its circumstances become clear.

 

- Security takes over dead bodies and carries out all required for investigation procedures

 

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.

The wording is slightly off. What i meant is all procedures regarding the body should be carried out before releasing it to medical. You process the scene, you take the body to the lab, you do the autopsy, you get the body to medical and then you carry on with follow up on investigation. Autopsy itself doesn't take that much time so it would delay the possible cloning only slightly (around a couple of minutes or so)

 

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.

In ideal world CSI would come to medbay, ask for the body, be handed the body and return it after the examination. The reality is that it's almost never the case. Cadavers are the cornerstone of medbay/security interactions and the lack of comprehensive policy on it makes this interaction a nightmare instead of a professional exchange. If the question of who should handle the body first depends on circumstances of death, what are the circumstances when CSI can take the body first? What are the circumstances when medics should have the body first? What if either of them doesn't do it? What if one side refuses to acknowledge these circumstances? Why should they go straight to the captain, bother him and hope he is in the good mood today to fix the problem? The policy clarifying all these questions is needed. This suggestion provides the clarification. Autopsy doesn't take that long to take a somewhat serious impact on the gameplay and with how things are now it's impossible to enforce either of the sides (forensics holding the body, refusing to give it to medics or vice versa) so it wouldn't really change anything. If wiki page could change the autopsy clause to "autopsy should be conducted in a timely manner. Players should be allowed to reenter the round as soon as possible" which would imply security takes priority instead of medical that would fix all of the issues surrounding this

[Synnono]

It's a station where people are not expected to die. A pretty safe setting. All crewmembers go through physical and psychological evaluations prior to getting employed. Any death is outstanding and assuming the worst in this case is hardly meta. Therefore to determine if it was accidental or not is up to the qualified professional (in this case CSI). When it comes to realism, here's a list of things that IRL require a coroner be called to look into the cause of death as it is by law is deemed suspicious by default:

- deaths that occur suddenly and unexpectedly (basically any death occuring on station barring death from viruses and poison)

- deaths at a construction or mining site (all miner accidents)

- deaths while in police custody or while a person is incarcerated in a correctional facility (all deaths of prisoners and detainees)

- deaths when the use of force by a police officer is the cause of death (deaths during arrests)

- deaths that appear to be the result of an accident, suicide or homicide (all "accidents", and obvious suicides and homicides)

- the person died while under anaesthetic or during a medical operation or procedure, or if the death appears to have been caused by the anaesthetic, operation or procedure (all deaths on a surgery table. Basically any death in medical)

- Death occurs within 24 hours of admission to a hospital during an acute or unexplained rapidly fatal illness, for which a reasonable natural cause has not been established; or, a person is admitted to the hospital in coma and dies within 24 hours without having regained consciousness (basically any critical patient that is hauled to medbay and poison)

 

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.

[MO_oNyMan]

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.

 

Security is not police per say but their goals are pretty much the same. Which is to stomp crime in a given area for the good of their employers (either the company or the government). The criteria presented is used to determine if the death is suspicious and if it requires investigation. If it is indeed suspicious then failure to investigate would cause possible further damages to the company due to the criminal walking free and doing his dirty deeds. Which is undesirable by the company. Which is why they hired the CSI to look into such deaths. Doesn't matter if the CSI is a judiciary empowered coroner, he works for the company to solve company problems. And really any workplace death is pretty suspicious and should be looked into if only briefly for reasons stated above. And after corporate investigation is done government coroners can look into it or ditch the body altogether, corporate security doesn't really care about what happens with perps after the shift. Their sole purpose is to prevent damages to the station and crew in the moment.

While you indeed can do anything you need to do by communicating the command i don't see why would we make the CSI to bother the captain any time a dead body comes up. What if there is no captain? What if there is no command staff? Officers technically can do anything they need by communicating with command as well. See the perp? Ask the captain to order you to arrest him. Yet they have guidelines that let them act on their own to speed up the process and overall increase realism. So why shouldn't the CSI get one?

[Synnono]

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.

[MO_oNyMan]

The issue with authority over dead bodies is that it's not exactly a petty thing. It's not a cook refusing to make you a cheesburger. It's looking into a possible death with a purpose to prevent further possible deaths. Relying on someone's good will to prevent someone from dying is a considerable security risk. Medbay is having a bad day, you go to CMO, he's busy, you go to the captain, hoping he will give you a minute of his time. If there's no captain you go to HoS who will have to negotiate with a busy CMO. If he fails he will have to start a command vote to relieve him. To top it off it can't even be IR'd since there's no policy set in stone that medics would be breaking in this case so the next shift it can all start over again. And it would be all fine but murder investigations are somewhat of a time-sensitive issue where every other minute can lead to another death that will start the cycle again and so on and so forth until a body found on a 5 minute mark remains unprocessed until the transfer call.

In the IR mentioned in the beginning the dude ignored the wiki guidelines and took a body for an autopsy in circumstances that strongly suggested accidental death going over the medbay entirely and didn't get punished for it. So the grand question of this suggestion is: can every other forensic tech do the same? I frankly don't see why not

[ben10083]

Hey, I was I-AN in that IR, let me explain my opinion on the authority. The way I see it, security should do a autopsy first since if they do cloning before hand the body will get contaminated with fibers and prints so even if there WAS a murder, I would have to sort out the medical and sec fibers and prints from any others (what if one of THEM did it?!) Overall, I feel that if there is a CSI or FT, they are permitted to force a autopsy before cloning, as IC sense the body is not going to be going anywhere.

[MO_oNyMan]

If the dismiss is going to stay i'm going to need some questions answered:

• Why does a situation as serious as investigation of possible murder have zero policy surrounding the process?
  
• Subsequently, why in a situation as serious as investigation of possible murder should an investigator rely on good will of the crew to allow him to even start doing his job?
  
• Every single job on the station works autonomously, meaning that they carry on their assigned duties unless specifically ordered not to by their superior. Why should CSI has it the other way around, hanging out idly until HoS specifically orders him to look into something?
  
• Why on a station that is considered a safe envirnment and where death almost never happens shouldn't any fatal incidents be considered suspicious by default despite fitting the criteria of being suspicious of existing IRL policies used by investigators?
  
• Why should murder commited without witnesses be considered less of a concern than a murder commited with an officer witnessing it?
  
• If authority over a dead body depends on circumstances surrounding it, what are the circumstances allowing the CSI to take priority?
  
• What are the circumstances allowing the medics to take priority?
  
• What are the consequences of failing to recognise such circumstances?
  
• Does the lack of policy on this matter mean that all murder investigations are effectively indefinitely suspended in the lack of command staff if medics are unwilling to cooperate?
  
• The IR shows a precedent of a CSI acting as if the suggested policy was implemented. Can every other CSI do the same thing and not get punished by the CCIA?
  
• If no, what made this particular CSI special, allowing him to act in that way?
  
• If yes, what reason is there to not implement the policy?
  

[mention]Synnono[/mention]

[Synnono]

Responses inline:

 

If the dismiss is going to stay i'm going to need some questions answered:

• Why does a situation as serious as investigation of possible murder have zero policy surrounding the process? - Because it was not previously thought necessary to write one. People communicate and get things done, or they fight and cause conflicts. Both of these situations can be additive to a roleplay experience.
   
  
• Subsequently, why in a situation as serious as investigation of possible murder should an investigator rely on good will of the crew to allow him to even start doing his job? - Because your character's job is ideally a backdrop for interacting with other people in the game, not a faithful re-creation of perfect job process.
   
  
• Every single job on the station works autonomously, meaning that they carry on their assigned duties unless specifically ordered not to by their superior. Why should CSI has it the other way around, hanging out idly until HoS specifically orders him to look into something? - Unlike most other jobs, a CSI on-station is nearly 100% reactionary to events. And when they do get called out to do work, in real life or in space life, it's generally because their boss told them to. If it is that boss's expectation that a CSI should be more proactive, they can discuss that with them.
   
  
• Why on a station that is considered a safe environment and where death almost never happens shouldn't any fatal incidents be considered suspicious by default despite fitting the criteria of being suspicious of existing IRL policies used by investigators? - If security wants to treat a death as suspicious, they can communicate that along with their reasoning, and work with the crew. Nothing is stopping them from doing this by default, but if it isn't warranted, it will (and probably should) create conflicts.
   
  
• Why should murder commited without witnesses be considered less of a concern than a murder commited with an officer witnessing it? - This is the leading-est question on the list. There is an obvious implication of urgency when you witness a violent crime. I don't see what this has to do with your original post. A CSI might not even be necessary in this case.
   
  
• If authority over a dead body depends on circumstances surrounding it, what are the circumstances allowing the CSI to take priority? - These are what CSIs, their bosses, and the other involved parties should be working out case by case. This is why the word circumstantial was used; there is no discrete and perfect set of criteria.
   
  
• What are the circumstances allowing the medics to take priority? - See above.
   
  
• What are the consequences of failing to recognize such circumstances? - Likely, acting against the consensus of the involved command/crew could make someone liable for a number of charges. Failure to Execute an Order, Sabotage, Gross Negligence and others come to mind. One size does not fit all.
   
  
• Does the lack of policy on this matter mean that all murder investigations are effectively indefinitely suspended in the lack of command staff if medics are unwilling to cooperate? - Medical staff are generally only concerned with the injured or deceased. This is not the entirety of an investigation, so no.
   
  
• The IR shows a precedent of a CSI acting as if the suggested policy was implemented. Can every other CSI do the same thing and not get punished by the CCIA? - IRs are handled on a case by case basis. Whether or not someone was found to be acting in the wrong is a result of round circumstances, statements from people involved, review of audit logs when necessary and any additional factors.
   
  
• If no, what made this particular CSI special, allowing him to act in that way? - If they were not disciplined, your handling agent did not find the specific actions of the people involved to be in violation of anything serious enough to warrant discipline. If they were disciplined for something, you are not necessarily entitled to hear about it, either. Character behavior is corrected when it is deemed necessary to correct it.
   
  
• If yes, what reason is there to not implement the policy? - I do not personally feel that this is a positive or necessary enough change for enough people to implement, which is why I wanted to dismiss it. Suggestion threads are not democratic or popularity contests, but other players and perspectives in this thread might have been helpful in convincing me otherwise.
  

 

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.

[Guest Menown]

You know, how this would be done irl is, the scene is secured by responding officers until forensics arrives.

Forensics does a brief examination of the body at the scene, takes pictures, then lets the coroner remove the body for a more detailed examination if needed (typically needed.)

I don't understand why this can't be done in-game, or why people refuse to charge people with neglect of duty when people are refusing to co-operate.

Take pictures of the scene, examine the body quickly, let medical take and attempt to clone, then ask for the body for examination or go retrieve it yourself (you should have access, as a CSI).

It's really not that hard.

[MO_oNyMan]

Responses inline:

 

• Why does a situation as serious as investigation of possible murder have zero policy surrounding the process? - Because it was not previously thought necessary to write one. People communicate and get things done, or they fight and cause conflicts. Both of these situations can be additive to a roleplay experience.
  
  The fact that the hole in policy was overlooked before doesn't mean it's unneeded. Moreover setting guidelines does not prevent conflict as it doesn't prevent people from refusing to follow them on an arbitrary basis
   
  
• Subsequently, why in a situation as serious as investigation of possible murder should an investigator rely on good will of the crew to allow him to even start doing his job? - Because your character's job is ideally a backdrop for interacting with other people in the game, not a faithful re-creation of perfect job process.
  
  As in previous point, guidelines on how to do correctly do not eliminate the process of interacting with the crew. Forcing people into a free-for-all is not going to help gameplay and contribute to enjoyable RP. Likewise, setting policies will not discourage them from it. By this logic all policies should be obliterated to make people sort every issue together by interacting with each other. Officers should talk people into staying at the brig instead of arresting them, heads of staff should convince bad employees to do better or leave the job by themselves.
   
  
• Every single job on the station works autonomously, meaning that they carry on their assigned duties unless specifically ordered not to by their superior. Why should CSI has it the other way around, hanging out idly until HoS specifically orders him to look into something? - Unlike most other jobs, a CSI on-station is nearly 100% reactionary to events. And when they do get called out to do work, in real life or in space life, it's generally because their boss told them to. If it is that boss's expectation that a CSI should be more proactive, they can discuss that with them.
  
  Engineers start fixing stuff only when it breaks. Medics start treating people only when they get hurt. Security arrests people only if the crime is commited. Janitor starts cleaning only if there's a mess. Most of the station jobs are reactionary yet it people don't wait for an explicit order to start doing something and they shouldn't as it negatively impacts the dynamic of the round
   
  
• Why on a station that is considered a safe environment and where death almost never happens shouldn't any fatal incidents be considered suspicious by default despite fitting the criteria of being suspicious of existing IRL policies used by investigators? - If security wants to treat a death as suspicious, they can communicate that along with their reasoning, and work with the crew. Nothing is stopping them from doing this by default, but if it isn't warranted, it will (and probably should) create conflicts.
  
  if security starts an unwarranted investigation it will create conflict. Policy on this matter does not remove this. On the contrary, it allows people to adress it instead of going to the captain every shift to go through the same exact issue over and over again
   
  
• Why should murder commited without witnesses be considered less of a concern than a murder commited with an officer witnessing it? - This is the leading-est question on the list. There is an obvious implication of urgency when you witness a violent crime. I don't see what this has to do with your original post. A CSI might not even be necessary in this case.
  
  The crime commited discreetly presents no less of an urgency than a crime commited indiscreetly. Yet instead of talking to people about how it would be great if they could stop with murders, and going to the HoS if they disagree with you, officers can act on the issue Due to existing policies
  
  
  
  ...
   
  
• Does the lack of policy on this matter mean that all murder investigations are effectively indefinitely suspended in the lack of command staff if medics are unwilling to cooperate? - Medical staff are generally only concerned with the injured or deceased. This is not the entirety of an investigation, so no.
  
  So security is only allowed to investigate murders partially then?
   
  
• The IR shows a precedent of a CSI acting as if the suggested policy was implemented. Can every other CSI do the same thing and not get punished by the CCIA? - IRs are handled on a case by case basis. Whether or not someone was found to be acting in the wrong is a result of round circumstances, statements from people involved, review of audit logs when necessary and any additional factors.
  
  And yet these factors are not clear. You can't go correctly about a thing when people judging whether you were right or not just push it over by saying "you do whatever you want to do, we'll come up with whether it's correct or not later"
  
  
  
  
  
  ...
   
   
  

 

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 @Sharp, @Garnascus or @Skull132 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.

 

The wish to in some way prompt interactions between players is admirable. However in this particular case the lack of policy causes more frustration than quality interaction. On the other hand implementing it fixes the problem of frustration while also keeping the interaction part. While the intention and reasoning behind the unwilingness to implement this are clear, they do not hold up to reality of what actually goes down in med/sec interactions.

[MO_oNyMan]

You know, how this would be done irl is, the scene is secured by responding officers until forensics arrives.

Forensics does a brief examination of the body at the scene, takes pictures, then lets the coroner remove the body for a more detailed examination if needed (typically needed.)

I don't understand why this can't be done in-game, or why people refuse to charge people with neglect of duty when people are refusing to co-operate.

Coroner then would look into the cause of death (which medics don't do and we don't have a coroner slot to do it for them)

 

Take pictures of the scene, examine the body quickly, let medical take and attempt to clone, then ask for the body for examination or go retrieve it yourself (you should have access, as a CSI).

It's really not that hard.

While in theory it's not that hard, what if medical refuses to hand over the body for whatever reason? Would they be in the wrong? They should be, right? But they're not breaking any regulations by doing so. There's no policy regarding what should be done in this situation. Neglect of duty can only be applied with a blessing of a head of staff (which may be busy or absent). And you can't retrieve it yourself because CSI doesn't have access to medbay general area and bodies are often misplaced in the tempomorgue (which is an additional two rarely used doors you have to bypass). So all you can do is go to a head of staff, to wait for him to give you a free minute, listen to you, understand your situation and fix the problem. All of which takes time and nerves of everyone involved. It can't be globally adressed since there's no global policy covering it, it only can be adressed via a head of staff on a shift by shift basis. To top that off it happens often enough to prompt a creation of this thread (which is more often than i personally would like)

[Garnascus]

I agree with syn here. I do not feel we need any policy or regs surrounding the issue and i agree with their reasoning on why. I do agree that the wording on the wiki should be changed.

[Bauser]

Do other players get the same general feeling I do that proper "crime scenes" aren't even created or enforced often enough? The pace of violent play is such that, when the situation arises where bodies actually start hitting the floor, security becomes too preoccupied with that to ensure that a particular scene is processed the "right" way: taped off, pictures taken, items bagged, cleaned up. And it's not strictly their fault - things happen too quickly for security to prioritize that bureaucracy, and of course dead players want to get back in the game as fast as possible.

It's because of those problems that I think having a clear regulation would be beneficial: if there's a prescribed series of actions, like a straight checklist, then people wouldn't need to waste any time debating who gets what and when. That time is valuable. So, security tapes off the scene, medical takes the body to attempt cloning, CSI takes pictures and bags evidence, janitor (or nearest bottle of space cleaner) cleans it up.

I don't see why medical shouldn't get first dibs on the body, considering that 1) autopsies are the exception rather than the rule and 2) security can requisition it from the medical bay just as well as they can snag it from the crime scene. If the most common case is that a cloning attempt will be made (and that is the most common case), it makes sense that the standard process would be to send a body to medical first.

And besides those mechanical reasons that a regulation would be beneficial, it absolutely makes sense from a roleplay perspective that there would be a Standard Operating Procedure describing what to do in the event of a workplace death. As has been pointed out before. So I agree that there should be a regulation, but disagree that the regulation should assume security gets precedence for the bodies.

[MO_oNyMan]

Do other players get the same general feeling I do that proper "crime scenes" aren't even created or enforced often enough? The pace of violent play is such that, when the situation arises where bodies actually start hitting the floor, security becomes too preoccupied with that to ensure that a particular scene is processed the "right" way: taped off, pictures taken, items bagged, cleaned up. And it's not strictly their fault - things happen too quickly for security to prioritize that bureaucracy, and of course dead players want to get back in the game as fast as possible.

It's because of those problems that I think having a clear regulation would be beneficial: if there's a prescribed series of actions, like a straight checklist, then people wouldn't need to waste any time debating who gets what and when. That time is valuable. So, security tapes off the scene, medical takes the body to attempt cloning, CSI takes pictures and bags evidence, janitor (or nearest bottle of space cleaner) cleans it up.

Basically that. Two hours is several hours too little for any sort of coherent proper investigation. Having to spend half of that time arguing over who should take the body helps noone. You either kill your time trying to do everything the proper way and get nothing done, frustrating other security, HoS, detective and everyone involved in the investigation or you start cutting corners to make at least something done frustrating people that get collateral damage because of improper security procedures.

 

I don't see why medical shouldn't get first dibs on the body, considering that 1) autopsies are the exception rather than the rule and 2) security can requisition it from the medical bay just as well as they can snag it from the crime scene. If the most common case is that a cloning attempt will be made (and that is the most common case), it makes sense that the standard process would be to send a body to medical first.

It depends on whether you want to priotirize OOC or IC point of view. From an IC perspective security should absolutely get a first look. From an OOC perspective cloning doesn't mechanically fuck with evidence in any way and players should be allowed to get back into the round as soon as possible. I personally don't care which one is it as long as i don't have to spend 40 minutes standing in the lobby arguing with a nurse about whether or not i should get a warrant in order to retrieve the body. Very often giving a body to medical is as good as spacing it because there's about a 30% chance you will never ever see it again except via cameras lying in the tempomorgue. The lack of policy on the matter is a huge part of this problem

[Scheveningen]

The unsaid standard is that the CSI should follow the body to medical and do an autopsy in medical's own facilities. after the individual is being processed to be cloned. CSI is intended to get a general look-see of their equipment to find if any evidence on them would point to a possible lead.

It doesn't need to be any more complicated than it is currently. You can just as easily do this by asking nicely to come into medical to do an autopsy and have a once-over of the victim's personal effects for your case. If you're polite, they have no reason to deny you. If they deny you, then complain to their CMO or to your HOS and if nothing comes of that, then file an incident report regarding the responsible individuals obstructing justice and deliberately preventing a CSI from being able to find out why a crewmember died.

[Bauser]

@ MO_onyMan

Since the cloning process doesn't change anything about the body, it would even make sense from an in-character standpoint that medical gets dibs. The company would absolutely be more interested in bringing the person back to life when the autopsy can be performed after. I don't know why you assume security should absolutely get the first look from an IC perspective, knowing that the cloning process doesn't mess with any of the evidence.

It's a question of fail-states.

If medical takes the body and something fucks up, suddenly an autopsy might not be possible.

If security takes the body and something fucks up, suddenly cloning might not be possible.

One of these dangers is greater than the other. Medical needs priority because their immediate goal is more important.

Another mechanical benefit of giving medical priority is that it gives antagonists a short grace period to attempt to intervene in whatever way they need to, before it gets locked up in the security wing. This serves as a window for them to steal something from the deceased, maybe plant something on them, maybe stop security from being able to perform that autopsy if they know it's going to incriminate them...

@Schev: Is it really the standard if it's unsaid? Because plenty of people don't subscribe to that same process. The benefit of codifying it is demonstrated by the fact that we're having this conversation and you're outlining the process at all. In other words, making it not-unsaid.

[Scheveningen]

Is it really the standard if it's unsaid?

 

From a security standpoint, that's usually how I've seen things go. You follow a simple process to get the job done and convince whomever along the way that your way is the best way for everyone without needing to enforce it. Being charismatic sometimes goes further than laying down to people that you're the authority and they're to follow what you say rather than helping suggest to them that it's a good idea.

For me it won't really make much difference if it's codified or written into the in-game law that this becomes the case. I do think security needs to OOCly respect that they shouldn't keep a body from being cloned. Medical should OOCly understand that security needs to build a case to do their in-game job properly. It's difficult to balance this tug of war over a body, really.

[JMJ_99]

As much of this incident was due to belief in non-existent policy, to clarify: Neither medical or security takes priority over a body, it is circumstantial, if security wishes to conduct a crime scene investigation, they should inform medical of such

I made this ruling, it is a first attempt at forming an IC standard regarding it. I do not believe medical or security has preference, however if security wants to investigate a crime there should be a form of communication between departments. Just because there is a body doesn't mean it's evidence. Also I've seen CSIs refuse to let medical to perform autopsies which shouldn't be the case either.

[MO_oNyMan]

Point by point

 

As much of this incident was due to belief in non-existent policy, to clarify: Neither medical or security takes priority over a body, it is circumstantial, if security wishes to conduct a crime scene investigation, they should inform medical of such

I made this ruling, it is a first attempt at forming an IC standard regarding it. I do not believe medical or security has preference, however if security wants to investigate a crime there should be a form of communication between departments. Just because there is a body doesn't mean it's evidence. Also I've seen CSIs refuse to let medical to perform autopsies which shouldn't be the case either.

Every death on station is by default suspicious. Whether or not the body becomes evidence in an opened case is determined by an investigator. While security can communicate their intent to investigate to medbay, medbay can tell them to fuck right off and they wouldn't be breaking any policies. So the only thing to do here is to go to a head of staff which may be caught up in some more important stuff than authorising a sabotage warrant for a medic withholding a body. It is overall ICly a gaping hole in station security protocols. Having it overlooked just to force security and medbay argue with each other is not a good enough reason to keep it that way. I am completely fine with medics doing the autopsy if only they delivered on it consistently. Autopsies is a part of investigation process that CSI prioritises as a part of his job. Medics on the other hand do not. MDs will always prioritise critical patients, surgeons doing surgery on living patients, residents and nurses helping out, psych doesn't have the qualification, CMO can't be bothered, viro is rarely played and is almost never bothered with cadavers etc. All of which leads to the autopsy being forgotten and investigation put on an indefinite hold. Moreover if there's a resonable suspicious autopsy may be sabotaged in medbay CSI should absolutely get the body.

 

The unsaid standard is that the CSI should follow the body to medical and do an autopsy in medical's own facilities. after the individual is being processed to be cloned. CSI is intended to get a general look-see of their equipment to find if any evidence on them would point to a possible lead.

It's not about the general look-see of their equipment which is done on-scene. It's about autopsy which is a very important piece of investigation. You either take the body and do it youself (which is being rejected) or give it up for cloning attempt and risk losing the entire case because the body is going to be stuck in the tempomorgue

 

It doesn't need to be any more complicated than it is currently. You can just as easily do this by asking nicely to come into medical to do an autopsy and have a once-over of the victim's personal effects for your case. If you're polite, they have no reason to deny you. If they deny you, then complain to their CMO or to your HOS and if nothing comes of that, then file an incident report regarding the responsible individuals obstructing justice and deliberately preventing a CSI from being able to find out why a crewmember died.

Asking nicely is great and all but it's not the ultimate weapon. Command staff and security are not obliged to ask nicely when it comes to serious on-station matters. If a possible murder is not a serious on-station matter i don't know what is. It's not exactly chef serving you the wrong burger. If asking nicely fails for whatever reason and heads are preoccupied (as they often are) what you have to do now is you give up on a murder investigation (that can cause more deaths) and file an IR post-shift (which may not even go through if the person is an antag). It's overall an unrealistic negligence of safety policies and should be fixed.

 

Is it really the standard if it's unsaid?

 

From a security standpoint, that's usually how I've seen things go. You follow a simple process to get the job done and convince whomever along the way that your way is the best way for everyone without needing to enforce it. Being charismatic sometimes goes further than laying down to people that you're the authority and they're to follow what you say rather than helping suggest to them that it's a good idea.

I don't need to go further i just need the autopsy results. Which are sometimes outright impossible to acquire regardless of whether you're a cutie about it or not.

 

For me it won't really make much difference if it's codified or written into the in-game law that this becomes the case. I do think security needs to OOCly respect that they shouldn't keep a body from being cloned. Medical should OOCly understand that security needs to build a case to do their in-game job properly. It's difficult to balance this tug of war over a body, really.

While OOCly in theory both sides should understand what is the reason behind this cadaver juggling is in practice it's rarely the case. Which is why the absense of policy does not work

 

@ MO_onyMan

Since the cloning process doesn't change anything about the body, it would even make sense from an in-character standpoint that medical gets dibs. The company would absolutely be more interested in bringing the person back to life when the autopsy can be performed after. I don't know why you assume security should absolutely get the first look from an IC perspective, knowing that the cloning process doesn't mess with any of the evidence.

Mechanically, from an OOC perspective it doesn't. From an IC perspective it very much might.

 

It's a question of fail-states.

If medical takes the body and something fucks up, suddenly an autopsy might not be possible.

If security takes the body and something fucks up, suddenly cloning might not be possible.

One of these dangers is greater than the other. Medical needs priority because their immediate goal is more important.

I don't think i've ever seen either security or medical fuck up to the point where the procedures would be impossible. That is not the issue here. The issue is that when you start an investigation and give a piece of evidence to medical you might not get it back ever. It might be prefectly viable for autopsy but you wouldn't have a chance to perform it. On top of that failure to follow up on a murder investigation can lead to more deaths. From a company prespective it's much more profitable to slightly delay a cloning of one guy than lose several others.

 

Another mechanical benefit of giving medical priority is that it gives antagonists a short grace period to attempt to intervene in whatever way they need to, before it gets locked up in the security wing. This serves as a window for them to steal something from the deceased, maybe plant something on them, maybe stop security from being able to perform that autopsy if they know it's going to incriminate them...

why wouldn't they do it immediately after they killed a guy? If they are a medic who didn't have time to cover up they can just straight up refuse to give you back the body. If head is preoccupied you're basically fucked. And it's depriving the conflict of one of the opposing sides. Can't be counteracted, can't be IRd.

[Bauser]

I don't think I've ever seen either security or medical fuck up to the point where the procedures would be impossible. That is not the issue here. The issue is that when you start an investigation and give a piece of evidence to medical you might not get it back ever. It might be prefectly viable for autopsy but you wouldn't have a chance to perform it.

Why would you not get the body back if, as you claim, medical never fucks up that badly? Furthermore, the situation you envision ALSO perfectly describes the danger to medical personnel and the deceased player. Your comment could just as well read: "The issue is that when you have a dead crewmember and give the body to security you might not get it back ever."

 

On top of that failure to follow up on a murder investigation can lead to more deaths. From a company prespective it's much more profitable to slightly delay a cloning of one guy than lose several others.

There's no forward indication that performing an autopsy will aid in an investigation, and security will be running around trying to prevent deaths regardless. You could even reason that focusing manpower on getting the body and evidence and prioritizing the autopsy would slightly weaken the team's present ability to provide security, since any officer who's helping to orchestrate the postmortem investigation is an officer who isn't out there projecting power or responding to reports.

 

why wouldn't they do it immediately after they killed a guy? If they are a medic who didn't have time to cover up they can just straight up refuse to give you back the body. If head is preoccupied you're basically fucked. And it's depriving the conflict of one of the opposing sides.

Because it might not have actually been them who killed the guy? The scenario I suggested is one where you're an antagonist and someone of interest to you (for any of the reasons I mentioned: need their stuff, want to frame them, assassination target, etc...) dies from any reason other than you killing them. And people seem to die plenty. And, just as before, your complaint about requisitioning the body from medical as security is doubly true of trying to requisition the body from security as medical.

"If the head is preoccupied you're basically fucked"

(and who's more likely to be preoccupied, the CMO, or the HoS?)

"Medical can refuse to give you back the body"

(Security can refuse to give up the body, too, but get this: between security and medical, which department do you think has the access to just storm into the other and take it back anyway?)

"And it's depriving the conflict of one of the opposing sides"

(The body doesn't stop existing just because you don't have control of it as a security player. There are other players in the game, too; viewing the round as just a conflict between security and the antagonists completely erases the role of everyone else on the crew.)

[witchbells]

This thread has been sitting here for a little while now.

I'm voting for dismissal of this. Synnono and I are in agreement that this policy isn't necessary for a variety of reasons both IC and OOC, and I'll summarize.

1. The general consensus is that cloning is time sensitive.

2. People are not expected to die get murdered. This is irrefutable - it is a standard that administration also goes by to prevent powergaming. The CSI is there as a precautionary measure, just like the armory is. Again, the CSI is here for a worst case scenario. To expect that everything is a worst case scenario, frankly put, is leaning into Bad Territories of metagaming and powegaming.

3. You want doctors to handle biohazards first, and no matter how you look at it, a corpse is a biohazard. I understand that a CSI has the necessary training to deal with a corpse as well, but considering the number of things that could have gotten into a corpse on a research station, you want those people in scrubs to touch the body first.

Here is my recommendation if you're having problems dealing with people in character. Communicate. You do not need to bludgeon people with authority in most situations. If you think there's something up, coordinate with medical.

This will be up for a week more before it's archived.

[MO_oNyMan]

I don't think I've ever seen either security or medical fuck up to the point where the procedures would be impossible. That is not the issue here. The issue is that when you start an investigation and give a piece of evidence to medical you might not get it back ever. It might be prefectly viable for autopsy but you wouldn't have a chance to perform it.

Why would you not get the body back if, as you claim, medical never fucks up that badly? Furthermore, the situation you envision ALSO perfectly describes the danger to medical personnel and the deceased player. Your comment could just as well read: "The issue is that when you have a dead crewmember and give the body to security you might not get it back ever."

You won't get the body back not because medics don't want to give it to you for whatever reason. The issue of not getting the body is pretty one sided in this case. I have never ever in a year of playing seen a medic come to security for a body and be denied it unless it's held on a DNC order for a classified case by the HoS's or captain's personal decree. I see medics deny the body all the time on the other hand.

 

On top of that failure to follow up on a murder investigation can lead to more deaths. From a company prespective it's much more profitable to slightly delay a cloning of one guy than lose several others.

There's no forward indication that performing an autopsy will aid in an investigation, and security will be running around trying to prevent deaths regardless. You could even reason that focusing manpower on getting the body and evidence and prioritizing the autopsy would slightly weaken the team's present ability to provide security, since any officer who's helping to orchestrate the postmortem investigation is an officer who isn't out there projecting power or responding to reports.

Officers are not supposed to participate in the autopsy process and that's exactly why the policy is needed. As of now there's no way around the denial except involving multiple people incuding officers, wasting everyone's time on a problem that shouldn't even exist in the first place and taking up resources that could be put to use somewhere else

 

And, just as before, your complaint about requisitioning the body from medical as security is doubly true of trying to requisition the body from security as medical.

As i said. The other way around scenario has never ever happened throught the span of my one year gameplay

 

(and who's more likely to be preoccupied, the CMO, or the HoS?)

They are pretty equal in that sense

 

(Security can refuse to give up the body, too, but get this: between security and medical, which department do you think has the access to just storm into the other and take it back anyway?)

Neither. If one did have that access there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

(The body doesn't stop existing just because you don't have control of it as a security player. There are other players in the game, too; viewing the round as just a conflict between security and the antagonists completely erases the role of everyone else on the crew.)

The main conflict is always antags and security. Other people may participate in it but almost always as victims. Having the body lying in the morgue prevents security from catching up with antags and does absolutely nothing for any other player even if they wanted to do something about it.

 

This thread has been sitting here for a little while now.

I'm voting for dismissal of this. Synnono and I are in agreement that this policy isn't necessary for a variety of reasons both IC and OOC, and I'll summarize.

1. The general consensus is that cloning is time sensitive.

I'm fine with cloning being done first for OOC reasons. What i'm not fine with is having to go on an hour long quest to retrieve the body afterwards which is the problem policy on this matter is looking to fix

 

2. People are not expected to die get murdered. This is irrefutable - it is a standard that administration also goes by to prevent powergaming. The CSI is there as a precautionary measure, just like the armory is. Again, the CSI is here for a worst case scenario. To expect that everything is a worst case scenario, frankly put, is leaning into Bad Territories of metagaming and powegaming.

the people are not expected to die at all. Looking at workplace accidents to determine whether it has foul play involved is a basic IRL practice. It isn't different for ss13 for neither IC nor OOC reasons

 

3. You want doctors to handle biohazards first, and no matter how you look at it, a corpse is a biohazard. I understand that a CSI has the necessary training to deal with a corpse as well, but considering the number of things that could have gotten into a corpse on a research station, you want those people in scrubs to touch the body first.

The body by itself is not really a biohazard. The round goes for 2 hours which is not enough for a body to rot neither ICly nor OOCly, people are supposed to be healthy when they come on station and so on and so forth. Not the point. People in scrubs can touch the body after the scene is lifted all they want. What i want is for them to either deliver on an autopsy results or hand over the body when requested after a cloning attempt. Neither is being done consistently enough, almost nothing can be done about it, hence the suggestion.

 

Here is my recommendation if you're having problems dealing with people in character. Communicate. You do not need to bludgeon people with authority in most situations. If you think there's something up, coordinate with medical.

Again, communication is fine but it doesn't always work. "I would like to requsition the body of X for autopsy". "No". "Why?" "Because i said so." That's where communication ends and sufferings begin.

When you are denied the body that is connected to a murder for no apparent reason and you can do absolutely nothing about it it's unsensical in both IC and OOC terms. Imagine if an officer asked a guy on a murder rampage to please go with him and after the guy refused he'd have to shrug and file an IR about it post shift.

[Faris]

Two dismissals, locking and archiving.