Jump to content
MO_oNyMan

[Resolved] Staff Complaint: Synnono, UnknownMurdered, SRVO

Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: MO_oNyMan

Staff BYOND Key: The list includes but is not limited to Synonno, UnknownMurderer, SRVODeath

Game ID:

Reason for complaint: Multiple incidents stack up to lead to this complaint. I will be listing them in chronological order

Act 1

 

The issue that i feel was a logical start to the problem was an IR filed by a medic about alleged unlawful detainment (exhibit A). The case was pretty clear cut, the medic (that i think was new) was requested to get a body from the tempomorgue. Instead of doing so he started messing around, trying to invent procedure that was not there, wasting time, which ultimately resulted in radstorm forcing us into maint. Then a patient arrived and medic tended to him and shift ended shortly after. The time wasted fooling around in the lobby resulted in a murder case being dropped. Considering the above, a sabotage warrant was requested from the head of security chief and approved, arrest was made by officers based on it. So the medic decides to file an IR, i'm not too worried because everything was done perfectly, all the authorisations and steps were in place. However a closure notice comes back. Was everything checked and proper procedures acknowledged? Why no, it resulted in a reprimand. Woah, what exactly happened there? Let me try and find out by filing an appeal (exhibit B). The response shed some light on what is going on.

First of all from the line "not corroborated by other accounts, including those of your own security department" we can conclude that someone (most likely the warden who was listed as a witness in the report) told in his interview that medics were indeed busy. However there was no security personnel at all present in medbay to witness the incident. So i'm not exactly sure what happened there, i would love to take a look at the interview that presumably became the cornerstone of the case. If the warden did lie about the incident it's a job of the investigators to discern lies from truth and come to a correct conclusion. Otherwise the process of chatting with an agent and what follows can hardly be called an investigation. This was not done, no regard to an acquired warrant was made, the entire case is based on hear-say and can be thrown out of the window just based on that. If the warden didn't lie then i have some questions for CCIA regarding where did they get this idea of some invisible security guy standing by me and being able to conclude that medics were extremely busy.

The case itself was a minor issue. The reprimand is a formality, people can make mistakes ICly and my character pertaining to the incident is a pretty apathetic one so i decided to let it go after the appeal. However let's look at some points raised by the appeal reply (exhibit B).

 

  • Point 1: "your personal opinion regarding the capacity of the staff to handle your request is irrelevant, in both the context of this appeal and that of the original report". That's where it starts to go downhill. As a direct participant of the incident i assessed the situation, deemed it breaching the regulations, submitted it for HoS for a review, requesting a warrant. HoS approved the warrant, officers carried it out. If reports are irrelevant as is, how are people supposed to report infractions to security? My account by itself could have little power as evidence seing how both lobby medics and myself were directly involved but as a starting point it's the most relevant thing there is when it comes to the case. On top of that my opinion was seconded by the person approving the warrant
  • Point 2: "Your willingness to have a doctor treating critical patients arrested for not accommodating you is an unfortunate reflection on your professionalism, and sufficient cause for the reprimand you are appealing.". Again, would love to see the interviews. The doctor was arrested while sitting idly in a departure shuttle, no patient was being treated by him. This point showcases complete negligence towards investigating a presented issue
  • Point 3: "Regarding that reprimand: given the minimal nature of the disciplinary action taken, we see no need to reconsider it.". Another tell that shows the lack of involvement into the incidents. If the case is relatively minor it shouldn't get attention? Is that how CCIA operates?
  • Point 4: "The use of the appeals process to attempt to reverse what amounts to a matter of note-taking is ineffective, and disrespectful of this office's time". Same thing. The punishment is minor so i shouldn't care? Isn't appeals meant for appealing? What is disrespectful is to conduct a poor investigation, slap a reprimand and then refuse to look into it properly, referencing the minority of the punishment.
  • Point 5:"filing of an appeal with new, objective and verifiable information would perhaps be in your professional interest". The lack of thereof didn't seem to stop CCIA from taking action on this particular case, but it stops me from filing an appeal? It is in my professional interest in one way or another to maintain some sort of an order on the station and a professional image to my superiors. The point of inconsequential punishment being unworthy of even looking at raised yet again.

 

Act 2

 

And now to the main course. A recent incident report filed by the CMO about alleged trespassing (Exhibit C).

Raider round. Medbay reports armed intruders. The department is understaffed, so myself, the detective and a borg gear up and go into medbay to face the threat. We're being let inside, greeted by fleeing medics. I can't help but notice that not one of them had any question about why are we trespassing in medbay and where is our warrant. So we start talking with the raiders, they shoot at us with ions and ballistics, we start trading back and forth. We move around, run back to recharge guns, the fight moves around the medbay and a bit into medbay maint and hallways. None of the medbay personnel we encountered asked us why were we trespassing into medbay during the course of it. The fight finally ends, four raiders killed in action, their bodies lying around medbay hallways. Seing how raiders with guns, hardsuits and god knows what else are probably best located somewhere secure i as the CSI started moving their bodies and gear to the evidence storage (as their bodies and gear are at this point evidence). There being four bodies and me being alone i put all the bodies in bodybags, label them and start making hauls from medbay to evidence storage and back. During one of such hauls i realise that there are only two morgue slabs in evidence and two is less than four so there's no place for half of the bodies. So thinking where would i put the bodies that can't fit into the evidence i come up with "morgue". So i allocate two of the raiders' bodies in the evidence morgue, their gear in the lockers, strip their companions as best as i can and move their companions' gear in the lockers as well, returning my own security equipment (picked up to respond to medbay threat) due to lowered code, no active threat and officers arriving on the station back to the armoury in the process. Then i return to medbay for the last two bodies. There were multiple medics that passed me while i was doing my runs back and forth, none of them asked me for a warrant or told me that i'm no longer allowed here or that i hinder someone in any way. So i move bodies to the medbay elevator and go down as the CMO passes by. Not thinking much about it i allocate bodies in the morgue, noting that some equipment needs to be surgically removed. So i go to the elevator to look for the surgeon, but the elevator is not working. My first thought is "the power is out" so i message the AI to get it sorted. The AI says that there's a locker holding the doors. My second thought is "oh that would be a fun IR to file", at which point i notice the CMO going nuts over general comms saying something like "Oh why are doors closing and opening, I'm sure there's noone there" and so on and so forth. So i message the chemist to remove the locker. The chemist replies that the CMO ordered to not do that. I ask if the chemist would testify on that and she agrees. I then message the HoP for approval of an arrest warrant on either illegal detention or illegal blocking of areas. The HoP doesn't give me anything distinctive apart from illegal blocking being inapplicable, so i decide to go with illegal detention. Having figured it out i messaged the AI to open the maint door for me when a new character arrives. The paramedic goes down the elevator, sees me and tells me to get out in a rather abrasive manner. Note that this is the first time i have had any sort of information about medbay revoking their initial consent for entry communicated to me. So i reply that i'm here investigating and sorting out the bodies and am planning to do so. The paramedic threatens to drag me out, referring to how he choked one of the raiders earlier. I make sure my flash is working and point out that he is unlikely to succeed should he choose this course of action. While we're talking another character arrives. An officer to the resque. He asks what is going on, paramedic tells his story about me trespassing, i tell my story about handling the bodies, officer asks me to leave, i say that one of the bodies still has gear on so i need to get it first. I get the body and go to the elevator but it seems it was blocked again i presume by the CMO again. At that point the person blocking an elevator is illegally holding two security members, hindering their efforts, either illegal holding or sabotage charge apply perfectly. Officers start to freak out about the severity of misconduct medical personnel gets away with (i presume he's new to the station). Being frustrated by having to sit in the sublevel for quiet some time now and to reassure the officer i tell him that we will sort this out eventually by getting a warrant, bashing those involved and dragging them to the brig. Waiting for some time we eventually get the elevator working which i presume the warden is to be thanked for (he had to personally go to medbay, leaving the brig to yell at the CMO to sort this out). So all three of us (myself, the officer and the deceased raider) leave the medbay. So we go to security and start talking with the warden who wants to know what is going on. So we explain everything to him, i request a warrant, the warden says that due to the lack of time it would be better to file an IR. So i go to gather some evidence for the IR, message that chemist who agreed to testify and find out that the CMO ordered all medbay personnel to not talk to security and she therefore is refusing to help with the investigation.

So the CMO illegally detained two security officers, then sabotaged the investigation of the incident in the shift. Okay, no big deal, i'll just have to file a report without follow-up evidence and hope everything will be sorted out. A couple of hours later i found out that the report was filed by the CMO (exhibit C) and think that that's even better since i don't have to bother with writing as much and will just give an interview and everything will be sorted.


I'll just say the closure notice i recieved is nothing short of a masterpiece (exhibit D). Let's go through it point by point

  • First the minor stuff. Multiple typos in an official notice. A little red flag



    Then moving to constructive.
  • "There indeed are testimonies of you making a clear and threat violence against medical personnel which is extremely unprofessional on your part" "clear and threat of violence", let's give it a discount and say that me talking to the officer counts as that. Does firefight that happened not even an hour prior influencing emotional state of the person in question count? Does medic displaying clearly hostile attitude including threats of violence first not count? The clause barely holds up. Moving on.
  • "in which ties similarly to your last reprimanded by Agent LaCroix". That's partially why i included the previous incident in the complaint. Referencing a false report in order to bolster charges is not something i like to see in any investigation.
  • "Fortunately, you had not assaulted this medical personnel in which could have exposed NanoTrasen to liability issues". So, letting armed intuders kill crewmembers instead of risking your life fighting them off would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Leaving dangerous contraband includning weapons on the floor in general areas would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Not storing bodies where they should be stored would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Medic threatening a security member minutes before would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Are we voiding the entire raider incident to be able to show how unacceptable it is to be rude to medics who threaten you?
  • "Crime Scene Investigators should not be wielding taser equipment although have you threatened an Emergency Medical Technician Sherer with use of violence and taser equipment". That's honestly my favourite part. I have absolutely no idea where this came from. As i said before, all non-standard equipment was returned to the armoury prior to the incident, i had only standard CSI gear and have never touched a taser throughout the entire shift. Just showcases the quality of CCIA investigations in their current state. Someone said something so it should be true, case closed, guilty. Evidence? Never heard of it.
  • "and have even reminded Sherer that she will not be able to a win CQC fight". How exactly am i supposed to react to a paramedic threatening me? Reminding that fighting a CSI head-on as a paramedic after said paramedic threatened the CSI is a perfectly viable deescalation. But let's lump it in with the charges just because why don't we.
  • "Even further, have trespassed and moved bodies in medical departments without informing Chief Medical Officer or any medical personnel in Chief Medical Officer's department" Have medics missed the raiders attacking medbay? Have they not called for security? Trespassing allegations just amaze me. If medics can let security into medbay and then go "psych! Got you now, you're actually trespassing" i would love for it to be reflected in regulations in one way or another. Furthermore, medical does not supercede security authority over bodies that was clarified before. Let alone non-crew criminals that were killed in action. If you want to get technical the place of a firefight was effectively a crime scene. If medics wanted to refuse to store bodies in the designated space for bodies thay should've communicated this to security instead of starting this farce and fabricating trespassing allegations.
  • "Furthermore, you have attempted to charge Chief Medical Officer of illegally blocking an area in his own department in which you do not have access to" detaining people against their will without proper authorisation is against the regulations regardless of whether it's your department or not. As with the previous point, if you want someone to vacate the area for any reason - feel free to communicate this to them. If they refuse you can sort this out via security. What you can't do is you can't break the regulations in order to boost your self esteem by playing a town vigilante. The only exception to disregarding the regulations i know of currently is captain's decision in an emergency situation. To my knowledge no command vote to take a captain-level decision has been held to block an elevator to keep security from doing their job.

During an interview i also had a question asked about whether I threatened to plant evidence to frame medical personnel. I can only guess what fairytales medbay personnel fed the CCIA. It seems that some were weeded out, others - not so much unfortunately.


Overall this shows an extremely low effort that was put into this investigation. Leaving out some facts for convenience, taking up the report despite it being connected to antag actions. This quality of work is not something i expect from a CCIA agents especially since their decisions have bearing on characters.

 

Act 3

 

So upon rereading the closure report several times to make sure it's not a bad joke i decided it's time for another appeal (exhibit E).

So i wrote it out, all neat and fine, recieved a notice of review, everything was great. But then a couple of hours later a new thread appeared with a set of questionable rules (exhibit F). The appeal itself was dropped due to some conviniently implemented rules with a remark to take the issue to the staff complaint forum which is what brings me here. Very unfortunate timing if i may say so myself

Let's take a look at some of these rules real quick

"Only appeal valid CCIA actions. Like our unban requests subforum, this subforum is meant to allow characters to demonstrate that they are compliant with the administrative actions applied to them, and that they satisfy the requirements to have them removed. If you do not agree with a CCIA agent's original decision, you should instead make an OOC staff complaint here:". Keep in mind that incident reports and appeals of thereof are completely in character and can't be compared to the unban requests which are completely OOC. Aurora is not an internet forum, it's a professional workplace environment, going to the company officials and telling them "i'm very sorry, i've realised my mistakes please give me back my money/remove the reprimand/promote me back" is completely unrealistic and would never happen. If that's how you want to handle appeals make them entirely OOC instead of trying to pass them as IC.

"Do not appeal minor CCIA actions. This includes both formal and informal reprimands, and other actions with a duration of one week or less. CCIA appeals are intended for long-term actions that place severe restrictions on a character's behavior. Remember that unlike a ban, in most cases, a CCIA action does not prevent you from playing your character in a round.". Pretty much same as previous point but with a twist. Long term actions are either dispensed for something serious and are lengthy suspensions or terminations or they are reprimands. Reprimands stick to the record and infuence the characters reputation, don't treat reprimands like passing tokens. And again with a comparison to the OOC punishment. CCIA action does actually prevent a good character from playing in the round because good character is logical. And logical character will not appear on the station as assistant when suspended from his primary job. Neither will he job-hop. The CCIA action technically not preventing you from picking a character is irrelevant in this situation.

 

Finale

 

So, what exactly i am doing here you may ask. Why are there IRs taking up most of this complaint? This isn't an appeal forum. You would be right, this is not an appeal forum but i'm here to appeal the CCIA investigations since an actual appeal forum didn't feel like accomodating me. Short term result i'm expecting to get from the appeal is a proper review of aforementioned investigations and withdrawal of all actions taken against my characters as a result of those investigations. Those investigation are based on nothing. They lack logic, evidential basis, anything that would make them even somewhat valid.


However that's only part of what i'm hoping to achieve with this complaint. Because it's useless to treat the local manifestations when the main issue stands. So with this complaint i would also like to adress a more global problem. The problem being extremely low standards in CCIA investigations. Now i don't know exactly how CCIA operates per say or whether it's a general CCIA issue or just a problem of a couple of agents but the fact that they consistently slapped a punishment following up a charge that had zero evidential basis beneath itself clearly shows there's some kind of a problem here.

It seems that the standards for CCIA investigations are leagues and leagues below what is expected from even security investigations. Security investigations are based on forensic evidence. Solid facts. And only sometimes extrapolated by witness accounts. And when they don't have solid evidence, they take a step back, leave the case, look for more evidence, wait for another opportunity. And in place of facts extracted from forensic evidence CCIA has what, comms logs? That's not nearly enough to make a solid case. Interviews could be a source of facts, but a written nature of the in-game communication seriously detracts from the reliability of this tool and CCIA agents prove time and time again that information gathered in this way can not be used by them to make a right call. But the lack of solid evidence does not stop them from making a call regarding an incident. What's even worse, despite the quality of investigation being really low, the power of the results of such investigation is disproportionately high.

So i would like for this complaint to be a push on the path to improvement for CCIA.

First thing that should be done is more attention to their job. Look into your assigned case, attempt to obtain sufficient evidence, make a decision regarding the results. If you can't obtain sufficient evidence (which is not uncommon seing how all you've got as a CCIAA is statements and some logs), walk away. Don't push for things you can't prove, it's better to drop the case due to insufficient evidence than to knee-jerk a false resolution. Make it a trend that people need to obtain evidence in round to have their report reviwed. Make them employ the help of the detectives. Make them employ the help of the IAA.

Second. Consistency. If you're dispensing a punishment that is equivalent to a ban abide by a set of consistent rules. Mods ban people strictly for rule violations. Punishing someone for something that is not in the regulations and then dismissing it by saying "well, it's all case by case, every review is personal" is poor conduct. Sure, i understand that all situations are unique in their own capacity but i wouldn't want to get suspended for a thing that another agent would rule as a valid action. Decisions should be based on something instead of depending on which side of the bed an agent woke up today. Make precedents out of cases. Post them somewhere. Go by them. Improve as you go. Same goes for treating IRs in general. They are either IC or OOC. Pick one. Don't say that IRs and appeals are IC but some apeals are being made OOC for other people to handle because they inconvinience you.

Third. Capabilities. Seing how CCIA investigations have high impact, i feel like they should have a broader variety of tools to be able to establish facts. The first example that comes to mind is reviewing camera feed. Not sure how this should be implemented but if all investigations are built around "he said- she said" why does CCIA even exist at this point? Cases presented show that they can't handle simple reports, getting absolutely confused and lost due to disinformation, starting to firing blindly into the darkness and can't even acknowledge they are doing so which leads to extremely bad rulings on cases that directly influence characters.


In conclusion i'll just say that there was a lot to lead up to this complaint, i wouldn't file it if i didn't feel like it's absolutely necessary. When i first found out about CCIA as a concept i thought it's the coolest concept ever, yet i find myself losing faith in its execution with every interaction. I'm not looking to shit on someone, i just think that if you volunteer to do something you either do it well or don't do it at all. I hope this essay will prompt some positive change.

 

 

Evidence/logs/etc: Exhibit A: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=11084

Exhibit B: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=11217

Exhibit C: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=11210

Exhibit D: https://imgur.com/a/Hs1FR53

Exhibit F: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=11303

Exhibit E: https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=11301

Additional remarks: The list of staff involved is incomplete since i'm not exactly sure who was involved in misjudging incident reports in question

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, so.


Even though your unfitting and distasteful title and the borderline jokey tone you've in writing this pushes me not to, I shall reply lengthily to your "concern".


But before that, i'd like to state that CCIA deal with IC.


We look at what your character says IC, versus what the other says IC.


We are not moderators, we do not check logs apart from really crucial radio-dialogue.


It is possible to represent yourself poorly to the CCIA in interviews, and there can always be mistakes.


You cannot report the entire CCIA for acting IC.

Share this post


Link to post

We look at what your character says IC, versus what the other says IC.


We are not moderators, we do not check logs apart from really crucial radio-dialogue.


It is possible to represent yourself poorly to the CCIA in interviews, and there can always be mistakes.

 

If the organisation the entire purpose of which is to investigate certain incident is not equipped to properly investigate such incidents what exactly is the reason for its existence? If you don't have any means whatsoever to deal with misinformation you might as well just flip a coin on an incident report to determine the result. And you don't need a whitelisted person to flip a coin. Not to mention flipping a coin is not something that is generally considered a distinctive proof of guilt

 

You cannot report the entire CCIA for acting IC.

 

That's what i was told to do, that's what i'm doing. Refer to exhibit e of the initial thread.

Share this post


Link to post

People need to cut it with the stupid god damn titles already. Nobody gives a crap about people trying to be funny or silly with their thread titles in these boards. Serious things like staff complaints, appeals, and IRs get serious titles that let us identify them at a glance.


That being said, I changed the title to something more rational for you.

Share this post


Link to post
So upon rereading the closure report several times to make sure it's not a bad joke i decided it's time for another appeal (exhibit E).

So i wrote it out, all neat and fine, recieved a notice of review, everything was great. But then a couple of hours later a new thread appeared with a set of questionable rules (exhibit F). The appeal itself was dropped due to some conviniently implemented rules with a remark to take the issue to the staff complaint forum which is what brings me here. Very unfortunate timing if i may say so myself

Let's take a look at some of these rules real quick

"Only appeal valid CCIA actions. Like our unban requests subforum, this subforum is meant to allow characters to demonstrate that they are compliant with the administrative actions applied to them, and that they satisfy the requirements to have them removed. If you do not agree with a CCIA agent's original decision, you should instead make an OOC staff complaint here:". Keep in mind that incident reports and appeals of thereof are completely in character and can't be compared to the unban requests which are completely OOC. Aurora is not an internet forum, it's a professional workplace environment, going to the company officials and telling them "i'm very sorry, i've realised my mistakes please give me back my money/remove the reprimand/promote me back" is completely unrealistic and would never happen. If that's how you want to handle appeals make them entirely OOC instead of trying to pass them as IC.

"Do not appeal minor CCIA actions. This includes both formal and informal reprimands, and other actions with a duration of one week or less. CCIA appeals are intended for long-term actions that place severe restrictions on a character's behavior. Remember that unlike a ban, in most cases, a CCIA action does not prevent you from playing your character in a round.". Pretty much same as previous point but with a twist. Long term actions are either dispensed for something serious and are lengthy suspensions or terminations or they are reprimands. Reprimands stick to the record and infuence the characters reputation, don't treat reprimands like passing tokens. And again with a comparison to the OOC punishment. CCIA action does actually prevent a good character from playing in the round because good character is logical. And logical character will not appear on the station as assistant when suspended from his primary job. Neither will he job-hop. The CCIA action technically not preventing you from picking a character is irrelevant in this situation.

 

This is a big post, and I'm sure the rest of it will be addressed as we go, but I did want to mention here:


Yes, these rules were updated while your second appeal was open. I did that because the subforum is supposed to be used in a manner similar to the unban requests forum, and the CCIA appeals subforum as it was before did not effectively communicate that. Generally, players making those unban/action appeals are (supposed to be) demonstrating that they are ready to be unbanned/have an action lifted because they understand why it was placed and have corrected the behavior that caused it. If I did not put the updated rules up, people would keep using the subforum to just argue the decisions. If you want to disagree with a staff member's decision, this forum is a more appropriate place to do that.


Note that while my CCIABS character writes coldly and is potentially unpleasant to correspond with, you should not be taking the things in her letters as some sort of personal attack on you as a player. She can put whatever tone she likes into a reply, but it's still me at the end of the day considering which actions to adjust and which to leave based on my own guidelines, OOC factors and the disposition of team members and our admin partners. We do generally discuss these cases as a group, for sanity-checking purposes. In both of your appeals, the actions were never eligible to be appealed by the guidelines I had set for them. Since those guidelines had not been posted by the time I had closed your first appeal, I put them up before closing the second, in order to explain the expectations on our side to anyone going forward.


Regarding reprimands, they are effectively the CCIA equivalent of notes and warnings (which also stick to a player in most circumstances), and inform the staff member looking at a someone a couple of months from now that an incident occurred. Notes on CCIA records reflect the decisions of a case at the time it was resolved, along with any note of appeal or modifications resulting from one. We would not generally consider removing these notes, as they reference canon events.


IRs have always occupied an uncomfortable space between IC reports and OOC requests to moderate a character's behavior, and how they're handled on our side often comes down to how players and characters are behaving themselves around them. When it's two people who are generally on good terms with each other OOC, and whose characters may have intentionally misbehaved or gotten into a fight to push a story and a report comes out of it, it can almost be looked at as just a roleplaying tool. When one is submitted because a player thinks another player is doing something wrong, and it comes down to a choice between a "realistic" in-world complaint resolution process and attempting to moderate behavior we as a staff team do not find desirable, we are generally going to go for the latter.


Going to give some of the team time to post their thoughts where they are involved.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post

snip

 

If the organisation the entire purpose of which is to investigate certain incident is not equipped to properly investigate such incidents what exactly is the reason for its existence? If you don't have any means whatsoever to deal with misinformation you might as well just flip a coin on an incident report to determine the result. And you don't need a whitelisted person to flip a coin. Not to mention flipping a coin is not something that is generally considered a distinctive proof of guilt

 

 

But, we are equipped?


We talk to witnesses, either sides of the conflict, check radio logs if required. But do remember that we are not mods.


You cannot claim that your OOC innocence will grant you immunity from any negative actions.


In pretty much all of the cases you use as evidence, the CCIA spoke to you, the other side, and decided that the arguments of the side that is not you are more credible, and have punished you.


And the fact that you wish for any and all CCIA actions on your characters to be removed here-

 

Short term result i'm expecting to get from the appeal is a proper review of aforementioned investigations and withdrawal of all actions taken against my characters as a result of those investigations. Those investigation are based on nothing. They lack logic, evidential basis, anything that would make them even somewhat valid.

 

Also proves that you just really want the CCIA to use meta knowledge so your characters won't be punished in the future.

Share this post


Link to post

Note that while my CCIABS character writes coldly and is potentially unpleasant to correspond with, you should not be taking the things in her letters as some sort of personal attack on you as a player. She can put whatever tone she likes into a reply, but it's still me at the end of the day considering which actions to adjust and which to leave based on my own guidelines, OOC factors and the disposition of team members and our admin partners. We do generally discuss these cases as a group, for sanity-checking purposes. In both of your appeals, the actions were never eligible to be appealed by the guidelines I had set for them. Since those guidelines had not been posted by the time I had closed your first appeal, I put them up before closing the second, in order to explain the expectations on our side to anyone going forward.

 

The tonality of the notices doesn't bother me as much as the context in which they are given. The context being false accusations. I could understand dismissiveness in the case of charges being completely valid with solid proof backing them up. However when the subject of the discussions is something that was quiet literally made up by the investigators that's where i start getting sceptical

 

Regarding reprimands, they are effectively the CCIA equivalent of notes and warnings (which also stick to a player in most circumstances), and inform the staff member looking at a someone a couple of months from now that an incident occurred. Notes on CCIA records reflect the decisions of a case at the time it was resolved, along with any note of appeal or modifications resulting from one. We would not generally consider removing them, as they are canon events.


IRs have always occupied an uncomfortable space between IC reports and OOC requests to moderate a character's behavior, and how they're handled on our side often comes down to how players and characters are behaving themselves around them. When it's two people who are generally on good terms with each other OOC, and whose characters may have intentionally misbehaved or gotten into a fight to push a story and a report comes out of it, it can almost be looked at as just a roleplaying tool. When one is submitted because a player things another player is doing something wrong, and it comes down to a choice between a "realistic" in-world complaint resolution process and attempting to moderate behavior we as a staff team do not find desirable, we are generally going to go for the latter.

 

The fact that notes stick to a player is the major part of the problem. The investigation process is not nearly accurate enough to justify sticking notes to a player that may or may not influence further staff decisions. The cases presented highlight it pretty well. If the mistake probability is that high either employ better means of uncovering facts to lower it or don't take investigations at all.

Whether the resolution to the incident is chosen to be a realitic one or a an attempt to moderate undesirable behaviour, charging a character for a non-existant crime is a poor choice of means to carry it out.


If the issue with miscommunication is acknowledged i'd consider it resolved, hoping such things will be handled more gracefully in the future

Share this post


Link to post

But, we are equipped?


We talk to witnesses, either sides of the conflict, check radio logs if required. But do remember that we are not mods.

talking to witnesses and making the decision based on whether you feel like you trust this particular dude over that particular dude is not a sufficient evidence to conclude an investigation in any shape or form. People lie, you can't tell the difference. If you could there wouldn't be a problem but you can't. And apart from this unstable source of information CCIA has absolutely zero means of obtaining any sort of solid evidence that would make them actually fit for an investigation

 

You cannot claim that your OOC innocence will grant you immunity from any negative actions.

As much as you can't claim that your IC lack of evidence can be used to stick tangible charges

 

In pretty much all of the cases you use as evidence, the CCIA spoke to you, the other side, and decided that the arguments of the side that is not you are more credible, and have punished you.

So they spoke to people involved and based on their accounts which may or may not be true arbitrarily decided to punish me? Is that your understanding of solid evidence? What actual evidence they have to deem one side more credible than the other? The answer is none.

 

And the fact that you wish for any and all CCIA actions on your characters to be removed here-

 

Short term result i'm expecting to get from the appeal is a proper review of aforementioned investigations and withdrawal of all actions taken against my characters as a result of those investigations. Those investigation are based on nothing. They lack logic, evidential basis, anything that would make them even somewhat valid.

 

Also proves that you just really want the CCIA to use meta knowledge so your characters won't be punished in the future.

The fact that i wish for any and all CCIA actions on my characters removed there proves that i really just want the CCIA to use any solid evidence that could actually prove the guilt or innocence of people involved. Which is currently not the case.

Share this post


Link to post

It is becoming kind of obvious that this thread is more begotten from frustration than anything because I am starting to having to repeat myself


CCIA does have ways of obtaining valid knowledge, much like how a real case would work in internal affairs, really


If testimonies match, we've a high likelihood of a fact


if they have no correlation, the opposite, and we also have ways of clearing those


we can either call people in for secondary interviews, or check radio logs, as those aren't really meta-information


if there is a case where there is lack of evidence, it will be stated, and as far as I'm concerned, none of your cases had actions taken despite a lack of information


And I'm not really sure you've justified why the consequences your characters have suffered should just fly away, as there was solid evidence that proved their guilt, from what the CCIA was given


People lie in CCIA interviews, people lie IRL to courts, you don't see courts checking the attack logs of life to see if baldy mcbaldo did attack crafty bill, not much more we can do spare checking radio logs and AI feedbacks from camera feeds


 

So they spoke to people involved and based on their accounts which may or may not be true arbitrarily decided to punish me? Is that your understanding of solid evidence? What actual evidence they have to deem one side more credible than the other? The answer is none.

 

Wrong. There actually is plenty of evidence that make one side's testimony more credible than the other's, much like how real investigation works, if one has lied before, their credibility drops significantly


And how do we determine lies without meta-knowledge, you ask?


Matching testimonies, giving weight to the witnesses', but it doesn't stop there


Once we suspect a lie, we don't just call someone out on it, we tend to press them with it, and that's usually where it falls apart


And it's not like assailants in reports don't get the chance to defend themselves


If an accusation is made on their person, CCIA are pretty much obliged to hear their defense about it


I do appreciate the effort, though. My job'd be much easier if I could base it on chat logs

Share this post


Link to post

CCIA does have ways of obtaining valid knowledge, much like how a real case would work in internal affairs, really

There seems to be a misunderstanding on what is to be considered "valid knowledge". A guy saying "He did wrong, i swear to god" is not "valid knowledge"

 

If testimonies match, we've a high likelihood of a fact


if they have no correlation, the opposite, and we also have ways of clearing those


we can either call people in for secondary interviews, or check radio logs, as those aren't really meta-information

Matching or unmatching testimonies and using this alone to make a decision show extremely poor results as can be seen in presented cases where crimes just appeared out of thin air. Short of direct confessions conversation itself is not a mean of proving guilt anywhere in the world. What is done through conversation (interview, interrogation) is search for further leads to actual solid evidence. Again if you were able to reliably use an idle chat to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt there wouldn't be an issue.

 

if there is a case where there is lack of evidence, it will be stated, and as far as I'm concerned, none of your cases had actions taken despite a lack of information

When you're out of nowhere being accused of something you haven't done that's where the lack of evidence is located. A thing that did not happen can not be reliably proven due to who would have thought the lack of evidence. And despite the fact that actions my character is being accused of never happened (and therefore can not be proven) i heard nothing about the lack of evidence (as you'd expect and as you said there would be).

 

And I'm not really sure you've justified why the consequences your characters have suffered should just fly away, as there was solid evidence that proved their guilt, from what the CCIA was given

No evidence - no crime. There's your justification

 

People lie in CCIA interviews, people lie IRL to courts, you don't see courts checking the attack logs of life to see if baldy mcbaldo did attack crafty bill, not much more we can do spare checking radio logs and AI feedbacks from camera feeds

Except courts do "check attack logs". Forensic science is an entire field based around "checking attack logs" IRL. We have some representation of it on the station btw. And if courts can't prove the suspect did X they don't charge them for X. And CCIA shouldn't either. Why do they do it is the question that is the cornerstone of the problem here

 

So they spoke to people involved and based on their accounts which may or may not be true arbitrarily decided to punish me? Is that your understanding of solid evidence? What actual evidence they have to deem one side more credible than the other? The answer is none.

 

Wrong. There actually is plenty of evidence that make one side's testimony more credible than the other's, much like how real investigation works, if one has lied before, their credibility drops significantly

You don't seem to understand how a real investigation works. You talk to people involved, you look for evidence, you try for confession. If all failed you drop the investigation. I don't know how law enforcement from where you are from works but going by "oh so he lied before he's therefore guilty" is not how things are generally done

 

And how do we determine lies without meta-knowledge, you ask?


Matching testimonies, giving weight to the witnesses', but it doesn't stop there


Once we suspect a lie, we don't just call someone out on it, we tend to press them with it, and that's usually where it falls apart


And it's not like assailants in reports don't get the chance to defend themselves


If an accusation is made on their person, CCIA are pretty much obliged to hear their defense about it


I do appreciate the effort, though. My job'd be much easier if I could base it on chat logs

Oh man, i'm so glad CCIA has this great method that is based on matching testimonies. Surely I can be completely calm knowing they will not get themselves into a dead-end following this method and start accusing people of things they didn't do with at least 90% probability? Oh wait, the method doesn't actually work and i have two counts of proof in a span of a month. Good thing i established that fact at the beginning of the thread otherwise someone would have to explain to me how to match testimonies from an IR with only two people involved.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, yes. I do recall this incident. I will only limit my words to what you know now and keep investigations which includes the notification, interview, summarized case, decision-making, punishment, and so on. These matters are confidential and will not be released to the public. I only can assure you certain people will be doing a check over the entirety of investigation from IC perspective and see what went wrong. As I read this complaint, I can tell you that I am mainly involved in the writing of ACT 2. It is as Eve says, you cannot claim that your OOC innocence will grant you from immunity from negative actions henceforth your OOC testimony of “how things actually happened” will mean irrelevant to IC testimony. To summarize, we do not give out people’s testimony or our investigation in the public in which will violate our promised IC confidentiality.

 

“Okay, no big deal, i'll just have to file a report without follow-up evidence and hope everything will be sorted out. A couple of hours later i found out that the report was filed by the CMO (exhibit C) and think that that's even better since i don't have to bother with writing as much and will just give an interview and everything will be sorted.”

That’s somewhat not how it should work. You should still have reported the offender for this infraction and listed down your witnesses on this incident report regardless of letting sleeping dogs lie unknowingly whether they’re vicious or not. By doing so, you are able to give more than enough information for us to piece together to why did this happen. You’ve chose to take this path and sleeping dogs woke up and have bitten you. Before I go on to discuss your red flags. I feel a need to discuss this with you, this was reviewed twice and approved by Synnono to proceed. It’s not something that one can type it out and turn it in without going a specific laid out process. The process with incident reports is more tedious and elaborate than administrators proceeding to punish a player for rule-breaking. We have one administrator and moderator that breathes over our neck to ensure that we are doing our job appropriately as Central Command Internal Affairs Agent. I will be presenting you a small touching from your testimony and how we were led to this decision.


 

” First the minor stuff. Multiple typos in an official notice. A little red flag”

Central Command Internal Affairs Agent is a voluntary OOC position, we do not get paid to do this. Before someone gets snarky, this does not mean that we do not care about our OOC position.


 

"There indeed are testimonies of you making a clear and threat violence against medical personnel which is extremely unprofessional on your part" "clear and threat of violence", let's give it a discount and say that me talking to the officer counts as that. Does firefight that happened not even an hour prior influencing emotional state of the person in question count? Does medic displaying clearly hostile attitude including threats of violence first not count?”

I can say this without violating witness’s integrity. There were indeed testimonies against you on this. People have seen this occurred. As I review your testimony once more regarding this situation, you are the only person to have ever mentioned a small fight involving casualties and so you alone decided to call the shots and moved the bodies into Medical Bay’s morgue. By doing so, you have given the bodies over to Medical Department in which they’re responsible for this.


 

"in which ties similarly to your last reprimanded by Agent LaCroix". That's partially why i included the previous incident in the complaint. Referencing a false report in order to bolster charges is not something i like to see in any investigation.

A “false” report? It may seem as a false report to you. As I have typed this response, I’ve reviewed your incident in “IR- 3-05-2460” by Cooper Sandavol (OOC: Kreig). I can assure you that this report is not false. Your CCIAA of this specific incident would be Alistair LaCroix (SVRODeath). You’ve also attempted to appeal your punishment from your character from the “actual” report. Like how administrators punish players or an judge, they will look at your notes/criminal records and decide what punishment would be the best place on you. If that was your first time, you may be given a gentle slap to the wrist… A second time? you will be given a harder slap to the wrist and may accounted to be a repeated offender to remind you not to do this again. It is like how we behave. This is a similar incident that had unfolded and can be used against you.


 

"Fortunately, you had not assaulted this medical personnel in which could have exposed NanoTrasen to liability issues". So, letting armed intuders kill crewmembers instead of risking your life fighting them off would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Leaving dangerous contraband includning weapons on the floor in general areas would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Not storing bodies where they should be stored would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Medic threatening a security member minutes before would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Are we voiding the entire raider incident to be able to show how unacceptable it is to be rude to medics who threaten you?

 

That’s not the issue. The issue is, you are a Crime Scene Investigator which means you are part of Security Department. According to testimonies, as a member of Security Department, you threatened an Emergency Technician Sherer. This is a reminder that you should not threatening crew members. Security Department is there to ensure the safety of crew members, not to attack your own crew members. Security positions are also expected to have high tolerance with rude crew members and hold it in.


 

"Crime Scene Investigators should not be wielding taser equipment although have you threatened an Emergency Medical Technician Sherer with use of violence and taser equipment". That's honestly my favourite part. I have absolutely no idea where this came from. As i said before, all non-standard equipment was returned to the armoury prior to the incident, i had only standard CSI gear and have never touched a taser throughout the entire shift… . Someone said something so it should be true, case closed, guilty. Evidence? Never heard of it.

 

There are testimonies against you saying this happened. Even in the court, testimonies ARE evidences. We do not investigate throughout OOC logs to discover whether you really did have that taser weapon as Eve said, the court do not have the capabilities to hold attack log whether person X hit person Y. Central Command Internal Affairs Agents are not Gods as administrators literally are. We investigate through testimonies, radio logs, AI feedbacks, camera snapshot attached with incident report, emergency message system, and so on. When we piece a puzzle together and suppose we found a said person was proven to be a liar, the person is more likely to be fired without a chance to return which goes back to the point of evidence. Most of the time, our investigation takes too long awhile to complete because either:

  • A CCIAA is having difficulties piecing the investigation together and is doing their best attempt to piece the investigation together. Sometimes, they will ask for a partner or team to assist the lead investigator.
  • A CCIAA has personal time and needs to leave for that specific reason. We don’t force people to do this. As said, this is not a paid job.
  • A CCIAA is taking their time to wait on someone's availability to deliver to have an interview.

These are the frequent reasons why our investigation takes long, under no circumstances do we ever rush our investigation. You do not see our investigation that ends often in less than three days lest inaccuracies in our investigation. I can assure you that this incident was not a minor incident and required more than enough time to complete it. The next three flags are already answered in prior explanations.


Off topic: I know this is a public mistake with me. I am not UnknownMurderer or UnknownMurdered. I am UnknownMurder.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a complaint on CCIA's practices, which we have all encountered, and so I feel it's fair that I be allowed to post here too. And it's a big one, so I can convey why I think this issue has arisen.


The idea that CCIA is purely IC is silly, because nothing is purely IC. Everything is done with OOC intent, even if that intent is only to play a believable character (though it's practically impossible for this to be the case). Even when playing a character, you have OOC expectations placed upon you (ability to do your job to at least a limited degree, ability to fit into our lore), because that is necessary to keep the gears of the game turning.


The main difference between CCIA and, say, a captain, is aside from the judgement of their own characters, no-one on-station possesses the means to irreparably change your character or their position.

Realistically, a captain would be able to make the kinds of decisions that CCIA makes, including firing employees (at the very least lower-level ones). But they do not have this, primarily because of the kind of OOC issues that it can cause. Unlike many other roleplaying games, you do not earn your position, and thus you're neither held subject to most of it's responsibilities or most of it's benefits. Thus, just playing your character is to a large degree OOC - you have to be here, because there's nowhere else to be, and other people have to put up with you. There's no accountability for your hiring, for your position, except for you as a player (or, to put it another way, it's OOC because you OOCly put your character aboard the Aurora, instead of working up to it through the system ICly).


Now, the issue with this is that since your characters position is a large part OOC, any changes to it are going to reflect that. You cannot avoid CCIA decisions. You can literally work around anything ICly, but if CCIA decides to, at the extremest level, fire your character, there is nothing you can do about that if they don't budge. There's nowhere else you can go. You can't join Hephaestus or Einstein or Zeng Hu and keep on playing. This is unquestionably OOC - an unavoidable damage to your position in the game. Of course, anything mechanical could be considered OOC, but consequences are erased between rounds.


So the question is, why is CCIA allowed to make permanent OOC decisions for characters while Heads of Staff and regular characters can only make incredibly temporary ones?

The generally agreed answer to this question is that they're whitelisted - while a head of staff is trusted to make decisions that will greatly impact a single round, CCIA is trusted to make decisions that will greatly impact every round. We would not have whitelists if there wasn't an understanding that this system applied incorrectly could cause major OOC discontent.


I don't know the correct solution to this, but I do know that we need to decide just how OOC IR's are. We can't just point vaguely to "a little of column a, a little of column b". We need to clearly define why CCIA exists, both ICly and OOCly. I'm going to quote Synnono's post because it's just so well worded:

IRs have always occupied an uncomfortable space between IC reports and OOC requests to moderate a character's behavior, and how they're handled on our side often comes down to how players and characters are behaving themselves around them. When it's two people who are generally on good terms with each other OOC, and whose characters may have intentionally misbehaved or gotten into a fight to push a story and a report comes out of it, it can almost be looked at as just a roleplaying tool. When one is submitted because a player things another player is doing something wrong, and it comes down to a choice between a "realistic" in-world complaint resolution process and attempting to moderate behavior we as a staff team do not find desirable, we are generally going to go for the latter.

 

Which, unfortunately, conflicts somewhat with this:

You cannot claim that your OOC innocence will grant you immunity from any negative actions.

 

The first claims that IR's hold both an IC and OOC purpose, which are distinct between each report, and the second claims that they are one in the same.


There is a strong difference between using IR's as a roleplaying tool and using them as a punishment tool. It looks to me that CCIA is not entirely in agreement about when each falls into effect. I believe that when players, staff, and CCIAA's all agree just what CCIA is for, these issues will fade out, and CCIA can finally be enjoyed like it's supposed to. Until then, these grievances will continue to be held, both publicly and privately.

Share this post


Link to post

Kind of poking in here. Sorry.


I sort of assumed that this,

 

You cannot claim that your OOC innocence will grant you immunity from any negative actions.

 

Tied into the general purpose of IRs being used as a tool to punish the actions of the character and not the player directly, such as what Synnono attributes as her personal statement on what IRs are used for. If a character is suspended, that is punishing the player in a way in preventing them from reasonably playing that character, but it's done so usually in a way that's supposed to be reasonable.


There's awkward overlap in my opinion and it sucks that the overlap exists, but there's really no better way in ICly regulating characters that lasts over to future shifts. This current way is muddled still by the fact that extended isn't as common as you getting an antagonist round, and odds are someone in an antagonist round as a non-antagonist is going to screw up in a way that would require consequence for it.


The system's not perfect, especially with the CCIA caveat that they literally can't do anything with an antagonist's direct prints on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello


I will be handling this complaint. As there is a lot to sift through i go through it point by point. This may take a while. For the time being if you're not ccia and cleared by CCIA then dont post.

Share this post


Link to post
“Okay, no big deal, i'll just have to file a report without follow-up evidence and hope everything will be sorted out. A couple of hours later i found out that the report was filed by the CMO (exhibit C) and think that that's even better since i don't have to bother with writing as much and will just give an interview and everything will be sorted.”

That’s somewhat not how it should work. You should still have reported the offender for this infraction and listed down your witnesses on this incident report regardless of letting sleeping dogs lie unknowingly whether they’re vicious or not. By doing so, you are able to give more than enough information for us to piece together to why did this happen. You’ve chose to take this path and sleeping dogs woke up and have bitten you.

On the round directly following the round of the incident i was contacted by the SRVODeath in PMs about an IR filed against me. I told him that i was looking to file an IR myself and whether counter IRs were allowed. He replied the counter IRs are not a thing and that i'll have to just mention witnesses in the interview and he'll go through them. I had an extra witness, i sent him the name of the witness in PM, i mentioned the witness in and interview. So i did everything i could do, asked if i could do more, was assured that it's not needed and rolled with it. If i was actually supposed to file a counter IR then it was a case of miscommunication.

 

"There indeed are testimonies of you making a clear and threat violence against medical personnel which is extremely unprofessional on your part" "clear and threat of violence", let's give it a discount and say that me talking to the officer counts as that. Does firefight that happened not even an hour prior influencing emotional state of the person in question count? Does medic displaying clearly hostile attitude including threats of violence first not count?”

I can say this without violating witness’s integrity. There were indeed testimonies against you on this. People have seen this occurred. As I review your testimony once more regarding this situation, you are the only person to have ever mentioned a small fight involving casualties and so you alone decided to call the shots and moved the bodies into Medical Bay’s morgue. By doing so, you have given the bodies over to Medical Department in which they’re responsible for this.

So let me clarify, the investigation voided the antag incident that was the entire reason for me being let into medbay and allocating bodies? And that's why trespassing is considered legit? Because medics calling security to medbay never happened?

 

"Fortunately, you had not assaulted this medical personnel in which could have exposed NanoTrasen to liability issues". So, letting armed intuders kill crewmembers instead of risking your life fighting them off would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Leaving dangerous contraband includning weapons on the floor in general areas would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Not storing bodies where they should be stored would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Medic threatening a security member minutes before would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Are we voiding the entire raider incident to be able to show how unacceptable it is to be rude to medics who threaten you?

That’s not the issue. The issue is, you are a Crime Scene Investigator which means you are part of Security Department. According to testimonies, as a member of Security Department, you threatened an Emergency Technician Sherer. This is a reminder that you should not threatening crew members. Security Department is there to ensure the safety of crew members, not to attack your own crew members. Security positions are also expected to have high tolerance with rude crew members and hold it in.

None of the threats (both from paramedic and myself) went over the line of regulation breach on "threat of death or serious injury". Considering recent circumstances (both armed raid which was apparently voided without droping an IR for some reason and me being locked down for a while and then paramedic appearing to see if being a dick can maybe solve the trespassing problem) the threats or any frustration really are ICly justified. I would consider keeping unphased if i was playing an IPC for example, but i'm playing a human that can become upset. And there were well over sufficient amount of severe reasons to be upset with medics going petty yet again. Some of them were left out so what exactly i'm expected to do in antag rounds? Acting like there wasn't ever an antag the moment it leaves my sight?

 

"Crime Scene Investigators should not be wielding taser equipment although have you threatened an Emergency Medical Technician Sherer with use of violence and taser equipment". That's honestly my favourite part. I have absolutely no idea where this came from. As i said before, all non-standard equipment was returned to the armoury prior to the incident, i had only standard CSI gear and have never touched a taser throughout the entire shift… . Someone said something so it should be true, case closed, guilty. Evidence? Never heard of it.

 

There are testimonies against you saying this happened. Even in the court, testimonies ARE evidences. We do not investigate throughout OOC logs to discover whether you really did have that taser weapon as Eve said, the court do not have the capabilities to hold attack log whether person X hit person Y.

Testimonies are used as supportive evidence. If person x says that person y threatened them with a taser then it's ground for reasonable suspicion. Then let's ask questions regarding the taser: does person x own a taser? Is there any pictures of them holding a taser? Where are prints of that person on the taser? In criminalistics every action leaves a reflection (that is the subject of study). If you shoot someone the reflections would be the bullet hole, the casing, the powder on your hands and on the gun, the damages done by the bullet etc. If something is true (which accusation of carrying a taser wasn't) there must be a reflection of it presented as tangible evidence to give the accusation any sort of weight. If you can't present it (which CCIA frequently can't) then it's just a suspicion and can't be used to dispense punishment. The haphazard rush for punishment with insufficient evidence is the problem here. Saying it's not because everything works fine is ridiculous because the very reason for this complaint being filed is me being accused of something i've never done twice in a span of a month. The solution i'm suggesting is either don't rush for decisions when all you have is a guy's testimony (which would considerably lower the CCIA punishments) or employ better means of obtaining tangible evidence (which would be somewhat difficult to set up unless you're using evidence gathered with the help of security/IAA on-shift).

These are the frequent reasons why our investigation takes long, under no circumstances do we ever rush our investigation. You do not see our investigation that ends often in less than three days lest inaccuracies in our investigation. I can assure you that this incident was not a minor incident and required more than enough time to complete it.

as with previous point. It doesn't matter how long do you spend on your investigation. If you don't have enough evidence, you don't have enough evidence. Using only radio logs and testimonies is not a reliable way to make a correct decision. Imagine piecing up a puzzle but 3/4 of the pieces are missing. You just can't reliably tell what on the puzzle most of the time. No matter how long do you look at it, you'll just think yourself into a corner and then slap your best guess. And piecing puzzles with only 1/4 of pieces would be completely fine by me, but the success or failure of this process can result in a player losing a character.

Share this post


Link to post
“Okay, no big deal, i'll just have to file a report without follow-up evidence and hope everything will be sorted out. A couple of hours later i found out that the report was filed by the CMO (exhibit C) and think that that's even better since i don't have to bother with writing as much and will just give an interview and everything will be sorted.”

That’s somewhat not how it should work. You should still have reported the offender for this infraction and listed down your witnesses on this incident report regardless of letting sleeping dogs lie unknowingly whether they’re vicious or not. By doing so, you are able to give more than enough information for us to piece together to why did this happen. You’ve chose to take this path and sleeping dogs woke up and have bitten you.

On the round directly following the round of the incident i was contacted by the SRVODeath in PMs about an IR filed against me. I told him that i was looking to file an IR myself and whether counter IRs were allowed. He replied the counter IRs are not a thing and that i'll have to just mention witnesses in the interview and he'll go through them. I had an extra witness, i sent him the name of the witness in PM, i mentioned the witness in and interview. So i did everything i could do, asked if i could do more, was assured that it's not needed and rolled with it. If i was actually supposed to file a counter IR then it was a case of miscommunication.

 

"There indeed are testimonies of you making a clear and threat violence against medical personnel which is extremely unprofessional on your part" "clear and threat of violence", let's give it a discount and say that me talking to the officer counts as that. Does firefight that happened not even an hour prior influencing emotional state of the person in question count? Does medic displaying clearly hostile attitude including threats of violence first not count?”

I can say this without violating witness’s integrity. There were indeed testimonies against you on this. People have seen this occurred. As I review your testimony once more regarding this situation, you are the only person to have ever mentioned a small fight involving casualties and so you alone decided to call the shots and moved the bodies into Medical Bay’s morgue. By doing so, you have given the bodies over to Medical Department in which they’re responsible for this.

So let me clarify, the investigation voided the antag incident that was the entire reason for me being let into medbay and allocating bodies? And that's why trespassing is considered legit? Because medics calling security to medbay never happened?

 

"Fortunately, you had not assaulted this medical personnel in which could have exposed NanoTrasen to liability issues". So, letting armed intuders kill crewmembers instead of risking your life fighting them off would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Leaving dangerous contraband includning weapons on the floor in general areas would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Not storing bodies where they should be stored would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Medic threatening a security member minutes before would not expose NanoTrasen to liability issues? Are we voiding the entire raider incident to be able to show how unacceptable it is to be rude to medics who threaten you?

That’s not the issue. The issue is, you are a Crime Scene Investigator which means you are part of Security Department. According to testimonies, as a member of Security Department, you threatened an Emergency Technician Sherer. This is a reminder that you should not threatening crew members. Security Department is there to ensure the safety of crew members, not to attack your own crew members. Security positions are also expected to have high tolerance with rude crew members and hold it in.

None of the threats (both from paramedic and myself) went over the line of regulation breach on "threat of death or serious injury". Considering recent circumstances (both armed raid which was apparently voided without droping an IR for some reason and me being locked down for a while and then paramedic appearing to see if being a dick can maybe solve the trespassing problem) the threats or any frustration really are ICly justified. I would consider keeping unphased if i was playing an IPC for example, but i'm playing a human that can become upset. And there were well over sufficient amount of severe reasons to be upset with medics going petty yet again. Some of them were left out so what exactly i'm expected to do in antag rounds? Acting like there wasn't ever an antag the moment it leaves my sight?

 

"Crime Scene Investigators should not be wielding taser equipment although have you threatened an Emergency Medical Technician Sherer with use of violence and taser equipment". That's honestly my favourite part. I have absolutely no idea where this came from. As i said before, all non-standard equipment was returned to the armoury prior to the incident, i had only standard CSI gear and have never touched a taser throughout the entire shift… . Someone said something so it should be true, case closed, guilty. Evidence? Never heard of it.

 

There are testimonies against you saying this happened. Even in the court, testimonies ARE evidences. We do not investigate throughout OOC logs to discover whether you really did have that taser weapon as Eve said, the court do not have the capabilities to hold attack log whether person X hit person Y.

Testimonies are used as supportive evidence. If person x says that person y threatened them with a taser then it's ground for reasonable suspicion. Then let's ask questions regarding the taser: does person x own a taser? Is there any pictures of them holding a taser? Where are prints of that person on the taser? In criminalistics every action leaves a reflection (that is the subject of study). If you shoot someone the reflections would be the bullet hole, the casing, the powder on your hands and on the gun, the damages done by the bullet etc. If something is true (which accusation of carrying a taser wasn't) there must be a reflection of it presented as tangible evidence to give the accusation any sort of weight. If you can't present it (which CCIA frequently can't) then it's just a suspicion and can't be used to dispense punishment. The haphazard rush for punishment with insufficient evidence is the problem here. Saying it's not because everything works fine is ridiculous because the very reason for this complaint being filed is me being accused of something i've never done twice in a span of a month. The solution i'm suggesting is either don't rush for decisions when all you have is a guy's testimony (which would considerably lower the CCIA punishments) or employ better means of obtaining tangible evidence (which would be somewhat difficult to set up unless you're using evidence gathered with the help of security/IAA on-shift).

These are the frequent reasons why our investigation takes long, under no circumstances do we ever rush our investigation. You do not see our investigation that ends often in less than three days lest inaccuracies in our investigation. I can assure you that this incident was not a minor incident and required more than enough time to complete it.

as with previous point. It doesn't matter how long do you spend on your investigation. If you don't have enough evidence, you don't have enough evidence. Using only radio logs and testimonies is not a reliable way to make a correct decision. Imagine piecing up a puzzle but 3/4 of the pieces are missing. You just can't reliably tell what on the puzzle most of the time. No matter how long do you look at it, you'll just think yourself into a corner and then slap your best guess. And piecing puzzles with only 1/4 of pieces would be completely fine by me, but the success or failure of this process can result in a player losing a character.

 

Sorry, I know I probably shouldn't post but I wanted to come clarify something.


The round you're talking about, we did call security to deal with the antagonists. And the antagonists were dealt with. We cleaned up. Everything was okay, incident over, security left. You were charged for trespassing about forty minutes later, when you came back and used our morgue without asking. That is why it was trespassing, and why the initial consent to be in the department no longer applied. It's not because what you were doing was linked to antagonists. It's because permission once does not mean permission always.

Share this post


Link to post

The round you're talking about, we did call security to deal with the antagonists. And the antagonists were dealt with. We cleaned up. Everything was okay, incident over, security left. You were charged for trespassing about forty minutes later, when you came back and used our morgue without asking. That is why it was trespassing, and why the initial consent to be in the department no longer applied. It's not because what you were doing was linked to antagonists. It's because permission once does not mean permission always.

 

You didn't clean up. I was cleaning up for you. Picking up corpses and weapons immideately followed the fight, nobody had any problem with that. CSIs can do a lot of things but one thing they lack is psychic abilities. To convey your thoughts the corporation has given you the headset. If you let someone in and don't want them in anymore - use it. Breaking regulations is punishable and is not how you go about things. Even in a hypothetical scenario if security actually was trespassing. It's standard procedure

Share this post


Link to post

[mention]Synnono[/mention] need you to comment on the last few posts. Was there confusion over the detectives reason for being there in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post

The incident with the trespassing and attempted removal of the body (what resulted in the report) took place after a de-escalation to code green, about forty minutes after security responded to the hostile incident in medical, according to the log. In interviews, the alert condition was confirmed by medical staff, indicating a gap in time for the station to de-escalate from code red, to code blue, to code green.


There are radio communications from Gonzales asking his staff whether anyone permitted Grimm to enter the sub-level after he was discovered at this time, to which none of them replied that they did. Grimm's interaction with Scherer was initiated strictly on the basis of Scherer wanting to inform him that he shouldn't be here, and that he should leave.


Gonzales conferred with Head of Personnel Bright, (the only other active Head, it seems) as to whether the trespassing charge was appropriate to press, to which it replied it was up to Gonzales' judgement. Bright also messaged Grimm in response to Grimm's request for an arrest warrant on Gonzales, saying that Gonzales has the right to deny him access to the medbay as CMO.


Whether or not any of the medical staff or the HoP was in the right with the above, it does not appear that there was much to suggest that Grimm had sought appropriate permission to enter the area, or communicated his intentions to move the bodies he had attempted to move. It all took place much later in the round than the immediate security response and direct cleanup. The record-able communications supported medical's interpretation of events, and contributed to my review and approval of UM's summary/resolution to the incident.

Share this post


Link to post

That's presuming security wasn't initially invited to deal with the threat. The active situation was handled, the aftermath was not and bodies and contraband needed to be stored properly. No medics stored the bodies in the morgue, no medics brought the raiders' contraband to security which is why i was forced to handle it myself. I'm not sure what "direct cleanup" was made but it sure wasn't connected to the raiders since even after deescalation to green everything remained in its place and i was the only one cleaning up. I managed to sort out two out of four bodies dealing with the aftermath of the incident (and noone including passing medics seemed to have any objections) yet when i was handling the remaining two it was deemed necesssary to make trespassing charges appear. As far as i remember code green was reinstated only in between second haul and the HoP's request to return equipment, which delayed the third haul slightly.


While according to regulations head of staff can deny access to their department, that wasn't done. The bodies and contraband were still lying in medbay, noone informed security that the medbay is now off-limits and contraband and bodies of the intruders should stay in the hallways for some reason. Instead the first thing that was done was blocking the all-access elevator to prevent people getting out of sublevel. That's not denying access to medbay, that's denying the opportunity to leave which is the opposite.

The raiders were not crew, were not insured by the company and were known terrorists so the only thing that could give medbay any sort of authority over them is the fact that they just so happened to die in there.

Share this post


Link to post

After pouring through most of the interview logs i cannot really find a reason to disagree with CCIA's various rulings here. I do not agree that ccia isnt equipped to properly handle an incident.

Share this post


Link to post

How to explain accusations of crime that never happened then?

The statistical probability of CCIA making charges up from thin air is way too high to write it off as a reasonable human factor of making a mistake. Two counts of spoofed charges through the course of two consecutive IRs in the span of less than a months.

How can anyone resort to CCIA as a mean to adress IC problems knowing that there's about 50% chance of them going into completely wrong directions and either not punishing someone who actually did something wrong or punishing someone who didn't?

How are people supposed to act and play knowing that even if they do everything correctly they can loose their characters to the blatant disregard towards the lack of evidence?

Share this post


Link to post

How to explain accusations of crime that never happened then?

The statistical probability of CCIA making charges up from thin air is way too high to write it off as a reasonable human factor of making a mistake. Two counts of spoofed charges through the course of two consecutive IRs in the span of less than a months.

How can anyone resort to CCIA as a mean to adress IC problems knowing that there's about 50% chance of them going into completely wrong directions and either not punishing someone who actually did something wrong or punishing someone who didn't?

How are people supposed to act and play knowing that even if they do everything correctly they can loose their characters to the blatant disregard towards the lack of evidence?

 

So in the very first IR you have testimony from a member of security PLUS testimony of the guy in medical AND radio logs of the medical and security channel against you. These charges are not made up out of thin air. The thing i might understand though is there might have been a bit of confusion about what exactly was voided due to antags and what wasnt. You're character was given the equivalent of a note after an admin bwoink. After looking through all of the evidence myself it really just seems like a difference of perspectives man.

Share this post


Link to post

So in the very first IR you have testimony from a member of security PLUS testimony of the guy in medical AND radio logs of the medical and security channel against you. These charges are not made up out of thin air. The thing i might understand though is there might have been a bit of confusion about what exactly was voided due to antags and what wasnt. You're character was given the equivalent of a note after an admin bwoink. After looking through all of the evidence myself it really just seems like a difference of perspectives man.

 

I think you're mixing IRs

The first IR (Sandavol) that resulted in a reprimand wasn't related to antags and i don't think there are any security radio logs that would play against me in that situation.

If you mean the second IR (Gonzales) then even aside from the fact that there was confusion about what was related to antags and what wasn't, the closure notice goes on about me threatening people with the taser and how CSIs shouldn't carry tasers. I haven't touched a taser the entire shift, i didn't threaten anyone with it. Moreover under false accusations i recieved not an equivalent of an admin note (which would've been pretty bad as is) but almost a week long character ban. Which considering the lack of solid proof is pretty appalling.


I have a very specific issue that seems to be reoccuring. When i do everything correctly (reporting a crime, storing contraband etc.) but still get punished by CCIA for it, what do i do? The punishment can vary up to a character ban (which is what mods do) but mods can get to conclusive results by looking at logs which are pretty solid. CCIA can only read interviews and based on that more often than not their judgement does not follow the actual events in question. So why are character bans a viable option? Leave them with the reprimands if they don't have means of obtaining solid proof. Otherwise people will be losing characters on arbitrary basis regardless of whether their play in the moment was correct or not. And when you're playing, doing your job and then suddenly you're being told that you can't play your character anymore because someone said you did something bad, that does not help the atmosphere of the game one bit.

Share this post


Link to post

No i assure you i am not mixing IRs. Its definitely all related to the initial one made by sandavol. I have access to the investigation archive and the interview transcripts. I do not really know what else to tell you here but after a lot of IR digging i do not see the merit to this complaint. I will now lock and archive it.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×