[Implemented] Give IAA's Injunction Authority

[Azande]

In real life, law enforcement do not issue injunctions. Injunctions come from an impartial review body such as a court and serve as a legal order to do, or not do something, the most common of which are restraining orders.

CCIA often serve injunctions to crew across shifts for sometimes, month-long lengths and even permanent. If their supervisors can do it for long periods of time, I see no reason that Internal Affairs cannot be given the ability to issue injunctions to crew if they've completed an investigation, or arbitrated a matter formally between two crew.

[Kaed]

I don't see why this responsibility shouldn't be passed over to security, since they're the ones that handle the on-station regulation enforcement. The bureaucratic division doesn't need more reasons to feel inflated self worth. We already have IAA who feel they are allowed to give orders to crew members than have them charged with 'failure to execute an order' when they ignore them.

They also aren't CCIAs, they don't have the same powers or responsibilities.

[Azande]

Security already has this power. I did not suggest removing it from them.

[Arrow768]

No, I definitly dont want them to have that power.

They are welcome to suggest a injunction to command, which they will most likely follow through, but I dont want them operating and filing injunctions without command oversight.

[Azande]

No, I definitly dont want them to have that power.

They are welcome to suggest a injunction to command, which they will most likely follow through, but I dont want them operating and filing injunctions without command oversight.

 

You do know the same whitelisted, responsible players are the ones play IAA right? We *can* trust them.

[Kaed]

You do know the same whitelisted, responsible players are the ones play IAA right? We *can* trust them.

 

It's not about the whitelist, it's about the position itself.

Also, whitelists mean very little except that you filled out an application and managed to string some coherent sentences together. It doesn't mean you're trustworthy, necessarily. There are whitelisted people that I find trouble grasping how they became whitelisted.

Especially since you only need to clear the whitelist once then you can play any role you want, even outside of what you applied to be.

[Garnascus]

It's not about the whitelist, it's about the position itself.

Also, whitelists mean very little except that you filled out an application and managed to string some coherent sentences together. It doesn't mean you're trustworthy, necessarily. There are whitelisted people that I find trouble grasping how they became whitelisted.

Especially since you only need to clear the whitelist once then you can play any role you want, even outside of what you applied to be.

 

He is saying that if we can "trust" command players to be able to order an injuction then we can also "trust" IAA players to do so since they are under the SAME whitelist. It WOULD Logically be about the whitelist in this case. I do not actually know when/if a command member can file an injunction though. I would have to check but if they are a little bit like restraining orders it does not seem unreasonable to me for IAA to have them. I am busy IRL at the moment so i will try to remember to hunt down the info.

[Scheveningen]

My HOS files out injunctions for radio abuse like candy, whenever I can manage the slot. I've had plenty of people arrested over it and I usually try to tell command staff when I file injunctions out to their own staff.

I think IAAs should be able to do a bit of the same, though admittedly its harder to enforce for them since they're just a babby IAA compared to a BIG DAD/MOM HoS.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The only time Command gets pushback for filing injunctions is if it is against other command, but honestly this power resting with IAA would be nice - especially if they were the only ones outside cap that could injunction Command.

[Arrow768]

You do know the same whitelisted, responsible players are the ones play IAA right? We *can* trust them.

 

Yes, but its not about the trust.

IA Agents are supposed to be "impartial arbitrators of regulations".

The moment they file a injunction against someone, they are no longer impartial.

In addition, if I am a head of staff of a department, I do not want someone else to indirectly command that department through the use of injunctions without my oversight.

If someone wishes to file a injunction against someone in my department, then they should have to go through me.

[Brutishcrab51]

CCIA are "impartial arbitrators of regulations", I've garbage-canned characters before, but we're still impartial.

IAA being able to act on their status as Internal Affairs Agents and filing injunctions would be good. Injunctions are essentially very specific case-by-case additions to the "law" that an individual has to follow, or risk being charged with Failure to Obey an Injunction (I'm 100% sure it's a low-level violation).

This is a Corporate setting. As an HoP, every single Head of Staff will tell your department what to do at some point. As an RD, Cargo will still demand minerals, and the HoP will probably ask. As an HoS, any number of scientists and cargo staff will want to give the Security department "fun" equipment. That's just how it is. Everyone works together.

IAA exists, and it shouldn't be made powerless to make Heads of Staff comfortable. This is completely reasonable for them to have. Full support.

[Azande]

You do know the same whitelisted, responsible players are the ones play IAA right? We *can* trust them.

 

Yes, but its not about the trust.

IA Agents are supposed to be "impartial arbitrators of regulations".

The moment they file a injunction against someone, they are no longer impartial.

In addition, if I am a head of staff of a department, I do not want someone else to indirectly command that department through the use of injunctions without my oversight.

If someone wishes to file a injunction against someone in my department, then they should have to go through me.

 

The Head of Security can already order any of your crew and YOU as a Head through an injunction. Do you trust that? Because the HoS doesn't need to consult you at all.

[Azande]

CCIA are "impartial arbitrators of regulations", I've garbage-canned characters before, but we're still impartial.

IAA being able to act on their status as Internal Affairs Agents and filing injunctions would be good. Injunctions are essentially very specific case-by-case additions to the "law" that an individual has to follow, or risk being charged with Failure to Obey an Injunction (I'm 100% sure it's a low-level violation).

This is a Corporate setting. As an HoP, every single Head of Staff will tell your department what to do at some point. As an RD, Cargo will still demand minerals, and the HoP will probably ask. As an HoS, any number of scientists and cargo staff will want to give the Security department "fun" equipment. That's just how it is. Everyone works together.

IAA exists, and it shouldn't be made powerless to make Heads of Staff comfortable. This is completely reasonable for them to have. Full support.

 

Brutish explains much better than I do.

An injunction that an IAA would file would be things like 'don't contact this person (restraining-esque order)' after an investigation into harassment.

As Arrow said and then completely forget immediately after typing, the IAA is an impartial arbitrator. They are impartial, UNTIL THEY MAKE A CONCLUSION ON AN INVESTIGATION. That is when they have reviewed the facts from a non-biased point of view, and then can make a decision (which inherently means taking a side).

[ShameOnTurtles]

CCIA often serve injunctions to crew across shifts for sometimes, month-long lengths and even permanent. If their supervisors can do it for long periods of time, I see no reason that Internal Affairs cannot be given the ability to issue injunctions to crew if they've completed an investigation, or arbitrated a matter formally between two crew.

 

Forgive me if it was said earlier, but is this suggestion referring to giving round-based injunction power to IAA or multi-round injunction power such as CCIA have?

[Azande]

CCIA often serve injunctions to crew across shifts for sometimes, month-long lengths and even permanent. If their supervisors can do it for long periods of time, I see no reason that Internal Affairs cannot be given the ability to issue injunctions to crew if they've completed an investigation, or arbitrated a matter formally between two crew.

 

Forgive me if it was said earlier, but is this suggestion referring to giving round-based injunction power to IAA or multi-round injunction power such as CCIA have?

Round based only, it would not cross rounds ever.

[Synnono]

Generally speaking I'm supportive of this. IAAs are loyalty implanted and whitelisted, and abuse of this ability would be reportable and subject them to either IC scrutiny or whitelist scrutiny. This ability would empower agents to arbitrate employee disputes as I would like to see them be able to, without having to always filter decisions through Central Command.

[Kaed]

Hush, Kaed. This is a much needed change.

 

It's a much wanted change, which is in no way the same as much needed. It's just another further attempt by IAA players to give themselves more power over the crew. I'm more of the opinion that the role should be removed from the server entirely, but that's not relevant to this thread. I'm just here to express my displeasure with the idea.

[ben10083]

Hush, Kaed. This is a much needed change.

 

It's a much wanted change, which is in no way the same as much needed. It's just another further attempt by IAA players to give themselves more power over the crew. I'm more of the opinion that the role should be removed from the server entirely, but that's not relevant to this thread. I'm just here to express my displeasure with the idea.

 

All heads of staff have more power over the crew, even if they do not directly have authority over them, crew would likely listen to their ideas since they know that the head can simply ask their boss to do the same thing. What I am trying to get at is that command staff (im including IAA) are trusted to have power over crew, and having IAA to be able to make injunctions (ie an restraining order) would be a good idea to make IAA better to play. As it stands IAA just has the power to have CCIA do things they could have done themselves with said order.

[Mofo1995]

CCIA often serve injunctions to crew across shifts for sometimes, month-long lengths and even permanent. If their supervisors can do it for long periods of time, I see no reason that Internal Affairs cannot be given the ability to issue injunctions to crew if they've completed an investigation, or arbitrated a matter formally between two crew.

 

Forgive me if it was said earlier, but is this suggestion referring to giving round-based injunction power to IAA or multi-round injunction power such as CCIA have?

Round based only, it would not cross rounds ever.

 

If this is the stipulation, I fully support it. At the moment, all IAAs have in their hands is the ability to tattle tale. If an injunction is filed in err, then someone could just file an IR against them, but generally speaking I think Internal Affairs is the perfect fit for this kind of power. Not brigging or arresting, but saying, "Hey, you two can't play nice" or "You have a serious drinking on the job problem" and making the right paperpusher call to address the problem before it gets to the "X person is being brigged" level.

[JMJ_99]

Support it for the same reasons as Mofo

[Faris]

So basically if we implement this, the way I see it is that IAA will be able to write up injunctions during the round itself. They can also fax central with suggestions to increase the injunction to cross multiple days, similar to what they do now when they do their own investigations. Any issues with this?

[Azande]

So basically if we implement this, the way I see it is that IAA will be able to write up injunctions during the round itself. They can also fax central with suggestions to increase the injunction to cross multiple days, similar to what they do now when they do their own investigations. Any issues with this?

 

None at all! This would be great. We may need a separate form for it drawn up (I can do this if wanted), as the other one is albelled as Security Injunction I believe.

[UnknownMurder]

I'm okay with this, it should deliver a plentiful conflict of interests between four parties: Crew, Security, Internal Affairs Agent, and Command. I'll share what we had discussed earlier in CCIAA team. At first, you were being extremely vague which is why we were hesitant until you started sharing more information about your idea. Eventually, we took an interest and grasped onto your idea. The downsides to it? I can see the crew is going to be complaining more about Internal Affairs Agent writing up a "ridiculous" injunction and an antag will probably try to kill an Internal Affairs Agent. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to catch every each injunction to increase cross multiple days. I'm sure you understand that we have life.

So far, I'm okay with this and I'll turn a blind eye to downsides. I would like to see your separate draft form drawn up so that we may discuss it more as a team.

[Azande]

Internal Affairs already can suggest week-long injunctions to CCIA, but cannot enact their own in round for the round (this is what the suggestion is aiming to fix).

The form I have made is here, I've left it up to you guys to decide which department header to put it under and how to number it (most likely Command or General).

 

[small]
[center][b]NanoTrasen Inc.
Civilian Branch of Operation[/b]

Form XXX
Internal Affairs Injunction Form[/center]
[hr]Facility: NSS Aurora
Date: [field]
Index: [field]

This form denotes a formal order to the employee(s) listed, following the conclusion of an Internal Affairs investigation, that shall be enforced by the employees of the Security Department.

Employee(s) Concerned: [field]
Order to be Enforced: [field]
Additional Notes:[list][field][/list][hr]Agent's Signature: [field]
Internal Affairs Stamp[/small]

 

In line with this, I believe it would be incredibly prudent to require that an agent have a filed Internal Affairs Audit, Staff Review or complaint form completed as evidence to support any injunction. Ideally, a Head of Staff could not override an injunction filed by Internal Affairs if a corresponding review/audit/complaint can be produced by the Agent, but the Captain as the ultimate authority could veto any injunction filed regardless of the report behind it.

[Azande]

[mention]UnknownMurder[/mention] bump