Conspiir Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 I know from the title, you're going to say "You can already do that, move to bin." But there's no better way to explain this than a paragraph, so: If you want to buy something necessary, such as plasteel for engineering or eggs for the kitchen, the easiest by far way to go about it is just to hand over your ID to the cargo guy and pay for it yourself. This stuff is intended for your department, your job, but you take money out of your pocket to get it. This is the way it's been for a while now. Yes, you can talk to an HoP about getting the department account number or have the funds transferred by the HoP themselves yada yada… But why. That's a hassle. It would literally take longer to get the attention and acceptance of the HoP than it will just handing over your ID, getting the stuff delivered, and getting back to work. Here's what I propose: A "Purchase With Department Funds" button on the payment page. Cargo can go into the payment page and press that button and presto, the money is taken from the department's account of the person that ordered it. (If it is a guest or assistant or merchant or something along those lines, an error will pop up instead saying there is no connected department account. They'll have to go through an HoP.) Speak of HoP, they can finally keep track of finances appropriately! Make sure people aren't charging recreation items to the department accounts! Cargo can show incompetence by thinking pizza is an appropriate charge for the Science Department just because a scientist said so! This should theoretically streamline payment of goods of a nonpersonal nature.
VTCobaltblood Posted November 1, 2018 Posted November 1, 2018 Perhaps a purchase from the department funds needs to receive the approval of either the department head, the head of personnel or the captain first, instead of the head of personnel reviewing it post factum? They can have it included in their PDA cartridge, or as a computer program. As in: you place an order and mark it as paid for in department funds, relevant command members receive a notice that a department funds order has been placed, they approve or reject it via a PDA or a computer, and it gets placed if approved. Department heads should also be able to order something from the department funds directly, without needing their own approval. However, even though my proposal seems logical to me, your idea with it just being logged at the HoP's computer may be more fun in terms of RP, for the reasons you've already stated in the first post. So, disregard my suggestion perhaps your approach has its good qualities as well.
ben10083 Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 I like this idea, all I worry about is abuse when no heads are on, perhaps allow AIs to also track department funds? (Plus you could do some neato AI antag stuff with finance). +1
VTCobaltblood Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 When no heads are on, cargo technicians handling the order probably should still have the right to decline your order if it's the aforementioned pizza for science funds or something. It's Cargo's responsibility to ensure that this isn't abused, and HoP is the one to yell at Cargo's incompetence if they allowed a recreational/otherwise unjustified department funds order to be placed. Suggesting allowing the AI to track funds to fix the issue of no heads present begs the question of what will happen if the AI isn't present either.
Conspiir Posted November 2, 2018 Author Posted November 2, 2018 This payment button should be locked behind the Cargo Tech/QM-only portion. This selectivity will be a good part of their job. People pass their IDs to a tech to pay. The Tech/QM will review the order, make sure the person knows what they're paying for, and then hit the >Pay button. My proposal is adding a >Pay with Department Funds button right under it (or off to the side, however this UI best works), so the Tech/QM has to weigh "is this department-fund worthy or not?" I don't have a problem with making it gated by an HoP (except if they're a Head of Staff) before the funds are transferred. The problem with making it pre-fund transfer is cargo doesn't always have the ability to deal with taking out so many credits at once. Bounties are meant to help, for sure, if cargo actually does them. If something does go wrong, ultimately the cargo techs get yelled at by a QM for not doing their job and the QM gets yelled by the HoP for not doing their job... To ensure correct fault is laid, maybe additionally add a "Approved by Xxxx" so the tech that actually hit the "Pay with Department Funds" button for pizza on the Research Department's dollar can be scolded?
Azande Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 No. Talking with your Heads of Staff and the Head of Personnel about getting the money increases roleplay interactions.
Conspiir Posted November 2, 2018 Author Posted November 2, 2018 No. Talking with your Heads of Staff and the Head of Personnel about getting the money increases roleplay interactions. Sure, if people actually did it instead of just handing over their ID for department purchases. And what if there isn't a head of staff? You still have to hand over your ID anyway.
VTCobaltblood Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 No. Talking with your Heads of Staff and the Head of Personnel about getting the money increases roleplay interactions. "dibector. gime moni" "for woot" "um thigsn" "tanklk to hop" "ok thx!!" 10/10 roleplay interaction Or, in less memey words: there is a reason between increasing a number of interactions and increasing a number of meaningful interactions. I'm pretty sure HoP interacting with an incompetent cargo technician that has allowed a scientist to pay for pizza in their department funds is much more meaningful than simply asking command members for the department fund account, which is going to be a simple question with a very simple answer every time.
Azande Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 Also if a Cargo Tech charges my department without asking me and it's not something worth charging to my account - I'm either having them arrested for theft or neglect of duty. There will need to be clear rules (maybe on a poster in cargo or on the noticeboard) about when something can be charged to a department account without that Head's permission.
VTCobaltblood Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 Also if a Cargo Tech charges my department without asking me and it's not something worth charging to my account - I'm either having them arrested for theft or neglect of duty. There will need to be clear rules (maybe on a poster in cargo or on the noticeboard) about when something can be charged to a department account without that Head's permission. i120 - Misuse of Department Funding To allow a purchase of recreational or irrelevant items with department funds without the approval of a relevant head of staff to go through. Punishable with a fine of up to 5 times the bought item's value, demotion/suspension on repeated offense. By irrelevant items, it's meant "literally anything not in the tab with the same name as your department". It doesn't mean, though, that the charge will always be applied - I imagine, for example, that Research ordering some minor items from the Medical tab is reasonable.
Azande Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 Also if a Cargo Tech charges my department without asking me and it's not something worth charging to my account - I'm either having them arrested for theft or neglect of duty. There will need to be clear rules (maybe on a poster in cargo or on the noticeboard) about when something can be charged to a department account without that Head's permission. i120 - Misuse of Department Funding To allow a purchase of recreational or irrelevant items with department funds without the approval of a relevant head of staff to go through. Punishable with a fine of up to 5 times the bought item's value, demotion/suspension on repeated offense. By irrelevant items, it's meant "literally anything not in the tab with the same name as your department". It doesn't mean, though, that the charge will always be applied - I imagine, for example, that Research ordering some minor items from the Medical tab is reasonable. Okay I'm on board if this regulation gets added.
VTCobaltblood Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 Also if a Cargo Tech charges my department without asking me and it's not something worth charging to my account - I'm either having them arrested for theft or neglect of duty. There will need to be clear rules (maybe on a poster in cargo or on the noticeboard) about when something can be charged to a department account without that Head's permission. i120 - Misuse of Department Funding To allow a purchase of recreational or irrelevant items with department funds without the approval of a relevant head of staff to go through. Punishable with a fine of up to 5 times the bought item's value, demotion/suspension on repeated offense. By irrelevant items, it's meant "literally anything not in the tab with the same name as your department". It doesn't mean, though, that the charge will always be applied - I imagine, for example, that Research ordering some minor items from the Medical tab is reasonable. Okay I'm on board if this regulation gets added. Do you think this should be an i100 with a fine, or an i200 with brig time? Neglect of Duty is an i200, after all.
BurgerBB Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 This should definately be a thing. Currently non-work related funds have to use the cargo account, but however depending on the currently employed cargo techs or the shaft miners, 5000 credits is sometimes not enough to cover everything
Doxxmedearly Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 It seems like a good QoL update for cargo, honestly. Shuffling funds as an HoP is really obnoxious. I think the assumption is that you received the necessary permission from your head. If not, well, then that's on the fault of the one placing the order, the tech, or both. And that's still RP. Perhaps even paperwork to cover it would be good. Fill it out, get it stamped, bring it to cargo. Or get verbal approval and deal with the paperwork later. If there's no head... use your best judgement. It really opens up a lot of freedom, and makes purchases less obnoxious. People paying for department goods with personal funds is stupid, even if we try to spin the "Oh yeah you get reimbursed later" excuse. This opens up pretty decent antag options regarding funds, too. Cargo techs could use up other funds for items... Frame other employees... Heck, if we had paperwork for this, you might actually see a forgery kit get purchased from the uplink.
VTCobaltblood Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 I think the assumption is that you received the necessary permission from your head. If not, well, then that's on the fault of the one placing the order, the tech, or both. And that's still RP. That could depend on the particular techie handling the order, actually. Be lenient and just assume they've got approval, or be more strict and demand proof of it? The RP opportunities are just writing themselves...
Synnono Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 If this change is made to cargo, we'll handle the regulating then. Right now I imagine we would be using Fraud to account for the misuse of funds, possibly adjusting its definition to make the application to the cargo system more explicit. I would like to avoid adding new regulations for single cases where they may be broken, if possible. As for the idea itself, I'm a big fan. Department funds should be used for department things, and the current system makes it hard for someone to do that.
VTCobaltblood Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 Right now I imagine we would be using Fraud to account for the misuse of funds, possibly adjusting its definition to make the application to the cargo system more explicit. I would like to avoid adding new regulations for single cases where they may be broken, if possible. How about: If Cargo approves a department funds order without the orderer actually getting an approval of their head of staff, the technician gets charged with Neglect of Duty, since their duty is to not get unapproved orders get paid with department funds, or, in absence of a relevant head of staff, make sure they're actually ordering items relevant to their job. If an approval is forged, the orderer gets charged with Fraud, since that is using deliberate deception - which will need no redefinition.
LordFowl Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 If the problem is that the current EFTPOS system is too clumsy, wouldn't the more apt suggestion be to rework the ancient and byzantine EFTPOS into a more usable system? If the problem is that the head of staff as a middleman is too arduous, I don't see a solution to that problem. Somebody needs to be approving the orders, and only the head of staff has the authority to do so. Burdening the CT with the authority that they shouldn't rightfully have is just a can of worms in its own right. The bureaucracy of our server is not orientated towards approval-less systems - I would be all for removing paperwork entirely, but at the end of the day the administrative system expects a signature. Voting for dismissal.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted November 2, 2018 Posted November 2, 2018 Paying for department supplies with personal money is bewilderingly bizarre. But doing it the legitimate way is complicated. We need a very streamlined and easy to use payment system but department money is what we buy supplies with.
Conspiir Posted November 2, 2018 Author Posted November 2, 2018 If the problem is that the current EFTPOS system is too clumsy, wouldn't the more apt suggestion be to rework the ancient and byzantine EFTPOS into a more usable system? If the problem is that the head of staff as a middleman is too arduous, I don't see a solution to that problem. Somebody needs to be approving the orders, and only the head of staff has the authority to do so. Burdening the CT with the authority that they shouldn't rightfully have is just a can of worms in its own right. The bureaucracy of our server is not orientated towards approval-less systems - I would be all for removing paperwork entirely, but at the end of the day the administrative system expects a signature. Voting for dismissal. This suggestion is apt for the reason it should (theoretically; honestly, I don't have any coding experience) be very simple to add. Why rework an entire system people don't like using when we can make a small addition to the system people already use? We already have the framework. The "Pay" button already exists. All that's needed is another button that connects to the department account of the ID inserted as well. This would make it extremely easy, mechanically. And for 95% of the cases, that's where it'll end. The chef will buy their chickens and clams. The engineers can get a supply of plasteel. The scientists can get their protohumans. The virologists can get their virus samples. It's the other 5% where there's grey area that we've already had a heated discussion on the discord about. Who would be at fault if someone used department funds for something that isn't department-related? Is the CT obligated to accept the person's request that it be paid with department funds even if it seems like a strange order (and would they have to report the strangeness to security)? This would be the field of the CCIA, to ensure regulations hold up and any grey areas are cleared up. Paying for department supplies with personal money is bewilderingly bizarre. But doing it the legitimate way is complicated. We need a very streamlined and easy to use payment system but department money is what we buy supplies with. Very bizarre, but that's because it's easy. Very complicated, but why does it have to be? This was the best idea I could come up with for streamlining it. I'm totally open to anyone that has ideas. It kills me a little bit inside every time someone comes in to buy something for their job and has to hand over their ID and pay with their own money because there's no Head. It shouldn't be that way. And I really, really want this fixed.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted November 3, 2018 Posted November 3, 2018 If I have to go ask the HoP for permission to order ketchup from cargo then it's going to be a big pain in the butt. Please allow initiative in cargo ordering for the common crew. Perhaps give a toggle for Heads to set the maximum amount of credits they would like spent that shift; but this hand wringing for saving money is, at the present moment, egregious. We will have more fun spending the money than we will saving it.
Azande Posted November 3, 2018 Posted November 3, 2018 If the problem is that the current EFTPOS system is too clumsy, wouldn't the more apt suggestion be to rework the ancient and byzantine EFTPOS into a more usable system? If the problem is that the head of staff as a middleman is too arduous, I don't see a solution to that problem. Somebody needs to be approving the orders, and only the head of staff has the authority to do so. Burdening the CT with the authority that they shouldn't rightfully have is just a can of worms in its own right. The bureaucracy of our server is not orientated towards approval-less systems - I would be all for removing paperwork entirely, but at the end of the day the administrative system expects a signature. Voting for dismissal. EFTPOS is not even used by Cargo anymore. Plz get learnt before you dismiss threads.
LordFowl Posted November 3, 2018 Posted November 3, 2018 If the problem is that the current EFTPOS system is too clumsy, wouldn't the more apt suggestion be to rework the ancient and byzantine EFTPOS into a more usable system? If the problem is that the head of staff as a middleman is too arduous, I don't see a solution to that problem. Somebody needs to be approving the orders, and only the head of staff has the authority to do so. Burdening the CT with the authority that they shouldn't rightfully have is just a can of worms in its own right. The bureaucracy of our server is not orientated towards approval-less systems - I would be all for removing paperwork entirely, but at the end of the day the administrative system expects a signature. Voting for dismissal. EFTPOS is not even used by Cargo anymore. Plz get learnt before you dismiss threads. That does not affect my opinion. It only narrows down the option to the one I spent more time discussing, and the one that cannot be solved.
Recommended Posts