[+1 dismissal]Curtailing IPC Authority

[Kaed]

Considering that you and I are very often at odds in almost any conversation we have, I'll just have to assume we have wildly different ideologies on how things should be.  I'll give you a few pointer bits mine about some of the things you just said.

-The unpopularity of changeling means nothing here, it was just the easiest example to come up with because I've watched it happen recently.

-I have been very specific about IPCs not needing a mechanical nerf.  They're fine the way they are, just don't put them in the HoS position and I'll be good. I'd like they out of all head positions, but I am capable of being realistic about my goals.

-You have an IPC whitelist yourself, so you have some preconceived bias already. This is perhaps understandable, given how IPCs have been given so many extra privileges that their players now feel they deserve them. Centurion makes a perfectly fine officer, I've seen them play that.

-There absolutely needs to be a visual notifier, what the actual fuck are you talking about.  If an entire race can be either free or a servant depending on circumstances, you need a way to easily know which is which so you can respect their respective rights, or lack thereof.  Do you expect robot slavery to be on the honor system?  That has definitely how slavery has always worked historically, you have to ask the slave if they are a slave to be sure.  No one has ever had to live their live in shackles with a stigmatizing artifact like a collar or slave brand.

-I'm not opposed in the least to the rights of robots (or any race, really) changing over time, as long as things can get better or worse later.  The most frustrating thing about this server's ideologies seems to be that they cling to the rewards and civil rights treats forever but let the bad stuff go eventually.  IPCs have been gaining more and more privileges over the last few years to the point where we have people actually saying there shouldn't be any difference between free and owned IPCs, and people should just have to ask them to find out.  They used to be this race that were barely people and abused and now everyone is basically expected to just let the robo-racism be on their own initiative, with no actual backing in how the robots are permitted to do things, because they get everything everyone else does.  You can't even abuse them anymore except verbally because laws protect them.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Kaed

[Itanimulli]

Well then we need visual identifiers that let people know if a human was raised by tajara or not.

 

Anyhow, IPCs are essentially indentured servants. If they've become free, it's because they've literally paid themselves off ten times over, been checked for personality flaws, ect ect. If anything, there should be 'laws' on owned IPCs that restrict them from preforming certain actions. Yes, I know, like borgs, but if they work on an NT station there is no reason they shouldn't come with an NT lawset. The only difference between a bound and unbound vaurca is the name (and color, but it's very minor and only for nerds with 4k monitors), yet it's very clear to people the difference simply because of how they act.

Regardless of how they seem to be perceived, a malfunctioning IPC is swatted down like a fly. They get much less room than Mr. Ex-Sol PTSD breakdown. There is a unspoken method of dealing with IPCs, but imo it's only blurred by baselines that have too much expression. I made an owned IPC that is basically an NT propaganda machine.

Then again, there is a point I utilize in custom item submissions: If it is visible, it will be brought up ICLy. I would be fi ne with a textual identifier, something you shift-click, but atm I'm attempting to fathom what  you could possibly put on an owned IPC.

[Kaed]

6 minutes ago, Itanimulli said:

Well then we need visual identifiers that let people know if a human was raised by tajara or not.

 

Anyhow, IPCs are essentially indentured servants. If they've become free, it's because they've literally paid themselves off ten times over, been checked for personality flaws, ect ect. If anything, there should be 'laws' on owned IPCs that restrict them from preforming certain actions. Yes, I know, like borgs, but if they work on an NT station there is no reason they shouldn't come with an NT lawset. The only difference between a bound and unbound vaurca is the name (and color, but it's very minor and only for nerds with 4k monitors), yet it's very clear to people the difference simply because of how they act.

Regardless of how they seem to be perceived, a malfunctioning IPC is swatted down like a fly. They get much less room than Mr. Ex-Sol PTSD breakdown. There is a unspoken method of dealing with IPCs, but imo it's only blurred by baselines that have too much expression. I made an owned IPC that is basically an NT propaganda machine.

Then again, there is a point I utilize in custom item submissions: If it is visible, it will be brought up ICLy. I would be fi ne with a textual identifier, something you shift-click, but atm I'm attempting to fathom what  you could possibly put on an owned IPC.

I'm for IPC laws, but considering how much people scream bloody murder every time they get culted or vamp thralled or dominated I doubt that is going to be a realistic possibility.  Even outside of IPCs, people get knee jerk mad about 'being told how their character can be played'. It's more likely to be some sort of tag or other visual identifier.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Kaed

[Itanimulli]

Tag as in the shift-click thingamajig?

And if they want to not do laws don't play a fuckin' owned IPC lmfao.

This could also be big for company lore. Lets say, for some strange reason, a G2 still owned by Hephaestus is on lease to the server. Well, now it operates under a slightly different NT lawset because of it's faction. Or Meth-Hu. Or Nanomed. You get it. Essentially your faction tells you how to behave, and clicking 'other' makes you have to abide by NT anyways.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Unathi and tajara in command is not being addressed in this thread. Ive outlined the steps our team is taking. Is there any discussion on the specific steps we are taking?

Edited December 16, 2018 by Marlon Phoenix

[Scheveningen]

There are some comments I wish to add.

1.) The rights IPCs as a species earned were ones that were fairly escalated as a result of the antagonist contests that led to this radical change occurring behind the scenes which eventually brought these advantages to the forefront.

2.) There are certain balance concerns regarding IPCs right now such as them feeling absolutely zero pain currently (not feeling pain allows you to get away with a lot of shit ICly, I've found). I empathize with these concerns having been solely defeated because I did not have the sole item that reliably and totally counters an IPC, but it's a lethal measure most of the time; an ion weapon to remove the IPC from the round. However I do have separate suggestions that will end up outside of this thread as a resolution I'll try to seek out personally.

3.) Removing rights from species is not just a decision with IC implications, it is one with OOC implications too. It is extremely tenuous to follow through what is, regardless of intent, punishing all players of a certain race because of the actions of a few-to-some. "Punishing all because of a few" is a form of discriminatory practice and I would caution anyone away from this line of thinking because it has been tried before in spite of ethical concerns regarding it, essentially it does not work reliably enough to handwave the unethical nature of doing it. I wish doing such things did fix the nature of the occasional "bad RP" we see on the server but I've never seen it work enough to be worth it. I hate to say this too because I fervently believe humans should be essentially having more advantages socially and culturally than the other species. I just do not wish to see people driven from the server because we decided to disable the method they play, regardless of whether they're responsible for the changes happening.

4.) I am okay with repurposing tags to be more reliable in identification. That's about as much as I will personally extend to allow because I love Shells having the canny resemblance to humans and the only way you could find out is with physical force or the convenient tag on them.

5.) I'm curious as to what 'loop' JB is referring to. Is this short for loophole or something, or rather is it referencing a cycle?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

By loop i meant a step that IPCs may have to take to be Heads. Akin to the Vaurca avowel. This is being discussed but we are working on something that will not be frustrating to existing or future synth head aspirants.

[Scheveningen]

The loop IPC heads had to obey before was that they were required to be a shell to be personable as authority roles. This was eventually dismissed as a rule at some point, I do not know when, however.

[MoondancerPony]

15 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

The loop IPC heads had to obey before was that they were required to be a shell to be personable as authority roles. This was eventually dismissed as a rule at some point, I do not know when, however.

This is incorrect. It was only for Heads of Security and Heads of Personnel. Before the antag contest, they could be a Research Director, a Chief Engineer, or a Chief Medical Officer. This is how it has always been, as far as I know.

They also required Command permission to be a Head of Security or Head of Personnel. Case in point: Toronto-88.

I think requiring shells for Heads of Security is absolutely silly, but I can see it for Heads of Personnel. I would much rather remove Security entirely, but I feel as if not allowing IPC heads of security (maybe save for some grandfathered in, like Toronto-88) would be a good first step.

[LordFowl]

Grandfathering is not a feasible process - there is no real effective way to verify that except /possibly/ by a remarkably in-depth database scan that really isn’t worth the effort.

[Kaed]

I frankly don't see a reason why we need to grandfather here.  This process (IPCs becoming heads) has become very unmonitored and slipshod, just make everyone start fresh. If they earned the right to do ti in the past, they should be able to again in the future.  IPC players can just deal with it.

[Scheveningen]

It also creates an awkward and unfair exception that one player gets to have but nobody else gets to share that right, which then undermines the point of having said guidelines in the first place if exceptions can be made.

[CommanderXor]

What of IPC Internal Affairs? You don't exactly apply for it on station given the entire 'IA must be unbias' thing, and it's 'recommended' (read required) to not cross-department/jobs as IA.

[VTCobaltblood]

IPC IAAs make a lot of sense, especially shells - they're the absolute best at being unbiased, and the shell frames in particular are easily approachable. As do RDs, CMOs and CEs due to IPCs' superhuman computational capability and extensive data banks. However, I'm in support of requiring an avowal for HoP and HoS, as there are mostly no inherent features that make them appropriate for HoP or HoS.

Edited December 20, 2018 by VTCobaltblood

[Kaed]

I would also like there to be paperwork in place to revoke an avowal.  If there are synth-loving people who will give an avowal the first time a synth asks them - and it will happen this is how grandfathering will actually work, some captain will just automatically approve them due to roleplaying with them as a head in the past - then there should be paperwork to revoke the right for anti-synths/sensible people, but only if they have an actual reason, like a fuckup that they can point out that makes the synthetic unsuitable for the role.  If you require an avowal to work it shouldn't last for eternity and be immune to contesting no matter what you do (ahelping them for breaking the rules is not sufficient here, I'm looking for IC ways to contest the legitimacy and make them work for their roles)

And hey, it'll give something new for CCIA to do.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Kaed

[ben10083]

1 hour ago, Kaed said:

I would also like there to be paperwork in place to revoke an avowal.  If there are synth-loving people who will give an avowal the first time a synth asks them - and it will happen this is how grandfathering will actually work, some captain will just automatically approve them due to roleplaying with them as a head in the past - then there should be paperwork to revoke the right for anti-synths/sensible people, but only if they have an actual reason, like a fuckup that they can point out that makes the synthetic unsuitable for the role.  If you require an avowal to work it shouldn't last for eternity and be immune to contesting no matter what you do (ahelping them for breaking the rules is not sufficient here, I'm looking for IC ways to contest the legitimacy and make them work for their roles)

And hey, it'll give something new for CCIA to do.

Imagine finally getting a avowal and working as a HoP for 3 months, only for a anti-synth captain or someone else revoking it because you forgot to carry the zero or some other small mistake.

Avowls can be revoked as a punishment in IRs and other situations, and I feel this is sufficent. Giving the regular heads the power to ruin someone's character in one round for a mistake would be a horrible idea.

 

Also I see no reason to make a avowal temporary, as I see no reason for people to give out temporary "Be A HoP pass". 

[Kaed]

I did not mean it should be temporary, I meant that it should not be eternal and impossible to revoke.

But if IRs are the way to do it, fine, but that's the idea I'm trying to get across.  Life should be hard for IPC players wanting to be in charge.. You are literally coddling them right now, and it needs to be less of that.  Things should be horrible sometimes, they're second class citizens, and you've rushed through the process of civil reform for the sake of making the PLAYERS feel more empowered and happy, which seems to be your primary concern here.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Kaed

[Alberyk]

@kyres1 your opinion on this since you are the new ipc lore writer?

[kyres1]

10 minutes ago, Alberyk said:

@kyres1 your opinion on this since you are the new ipc lore writer?

While I believe IPC heads are definitely weird to have around, it'd be even weirder to retcon the bajillion IPC heads there are, or alternatively make an entire arc to see them demoted. I don't seek to delete that many characters off of that opinion alone. Unless there's major community push in that direction, I'll settle my opinion on "keep IPC heads as-is" and change their exact authority if matters change.

Also: I do not seek to repeat civil rights arcs that have been seen time and time again for literal years now. IPCs in their current state in society will most likely remain just as discriminated as they are for quite some time until plenty of other, different things have actually happened.

Edited April 28, 2019 by kyres1

[Alberyk]

Voting for dismissal then.

[Kaed]

On 27/04/2019 at 21:08, kyres1 said:

While I believe IPC heads are definitely weird to have around, it'd be even weirder to retcon the bajillion IPC heads there are, or alternatively make an entire arc to see them demoted. I don't seek to delete that many characters off of that opinion alone. Unless there's major community push in that direction, I'll settle my opinion on "keep IPC heads as-is" and change their exact authority if matters change.

Also: I do not seek to repeat civil rights arcs that have been seen time and time again for literal years now. IPCs in their current state in society will most likely remain just as discriminated as they are for quite some time until plenty of other, different things have actually happened.

[scrubbed] I guess I'm being too big of a meanie again, oops. 

How about a community poll about it on the server if you want to judge what people want, because most people sure as hell don't even come on the forum to read this thread.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Kaed

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

12 minutes ago, Kaed said:

Sounds like we're in good hands here with this new member of the IPC lore team. 

If you want me to keep reading your posts here then don't do this.

[Mofo1995]

Given how old this policy suggestion is, and given how long IPC heads of staff have been around, I have decided against this course of action for our lore.