Clarification needed between Whitelist Expectations of heads of staff, and CCIAA Expectations of heads of staff.

[Bygonehero]

As has occurred multiple times in canon events, or even in regular gameplay, the expectations that we as a community enforce and reward in our Heads of Staff Whitelistees do not always agree with the expectations that, CCIAA report on, and in some cases, punish. 

 

As a community, we desire heads of staff to be inclusive. To drive the round forward for EVERYONE. However, I find it extremely silly then to punish a player or their characters OOCLY or ICLY for doing what we expect of them.

If regulations were adhered to by command staff, then those players would be criticized for doing EXACTLY what we don't want from command staff. Excluding players, and halting a rounds developments before it begins. The canon events I've ran have involved a large amount of people, in no small part to the efforts of command staff to live up to the expectations we give them. Roleplay opportunities should not get crushed under the weight of CCIAA Reprisal. It is ultimately not what the CCIA is initially made for. Most troubling of all is the term  "Weaponized IR's"  it is different subject in of itself, but some may arise out of these problems.

[ben10083]

I understand the crux if your argument, but how do you feel such an issue can be resolved? Command staff are expected to follow regulations and ither policies just like everyone else is.

[Bygonehero]

I've always been of the mind to ignore these issues when they arise, because I do not have a good solution to the problem. On one hand, it is good to have realistic expectations, but on the other hand, its a game, and people working to make the game more fun should not be dissuaded  from doing so. 

[Bygonehero]

To clarify above, In all of my events, I strongly discouraged IR's of any kind, even if such actions are particularly egregious, up until the point of murder, I feel it is not healthy for anyone for CCIAA to weigh in, especially if it is in the case of stripping someones white list, or punishing their character.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Bygonehero

[Zundy]

Why would your whitelist get stripped for breaking regs?

[Bygonehero]

13 minutes ago, Zundy said:

Why would your whitelist get stripped for breaking regs?

I've learned that this only occurs when server rules are broken, but Character firings can happen, which to some players is akin to achieving the same thing.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

If an infraction can reasonably be interpreted to have been done in good faith, then outside reforms that synergize regulations and CCIA expectations, at this very moment without systemic change it can simply be a matter of continuing the mild punishments of temporary ic warnings.

[Xelnagahunter]

On 07/06/2019 at 12:54, Bygonehero said:

I've learned that this only occurs when server rules are broken, but Character firings can happen, which to some players is akin to achieving the same thing.

Character firings have always been a very rare form of punishment. This usually requires insanely heavy breaking of regulations or highly repetitive major regulation breaks. The mass majority of our ruling tend to end up in minor injunctions such as no contact orders, temporary demotions, or permanent demotions for slightly more extreme issues. Our lesser punishments do next to nothing to effect in-game things, these include sensitivity training and official reprimands (marks on your CCIA Employment records that the player cannot delete). Even in the event a major punishment occurs, you are usually free to have the character appeal such things with CCIA after a time, including being fired in most cases. Don't let a fear of CCIA actions stifle your RP. We are there to build upon such RP, not to cripple it. Weaponized IRs are also treated differently when found, though since a lot has changed since I was on the team last I am not entirely sure what the procedure is if we discover them.

[Bygonehero]

Still think this should be clarified. CCIAA issues aside, heads of staff are disproportionately encouraged to follow regulations when OOCLY we expect them to be more inclusive. How is trapping the alien thing more inclusive, and driving to a rounds story when you are trapping it inside of xenobiology? 

 

Regulations as followed kill interaction, and any deviation from regulation can be punished by IC reporting. Read the expectation question from two  dozen command white-list applications. How are we living up to the expectations of the community when regulations more often than not do the exact opposite?

Edited July 3, 2019 by Bygonehero

[ben10083]

37 minutes ago, Bygonehero said:

Still think this should be clarified. CCIAA issues aside, heads of staff are disproportionately encouraged to follow regulations when OOCLY we expect them to be more inclusive. How is trapping the alien thing more inclusive, and driving to a rounds story when you are trapping it inside of xenobiology? 

 

Regulations as followed kill interaction, and any deviation from regulation can be punished by IC reporting. Read the expectation question from two  dozen command white-list applications. How are we living up to the expectations of the community when regulations more often than not do the exact opposite?

We must keep in mind that IC punishments are not inherently bad. Yes, the company is technically punishing you, but it doesnt have any lasting ooc impact (most of the time) and is expected to help develop a character. If you make regulations open to things that canon rounds usually cause, other rounds would be chaos, while if we keep them the way they are, it provides a stable framework for rounds to follow, with deviations from command and others causing a slap on the wrist by ccia if they get ired. It is something they should keep in mind, but not a end all be all deterant. 

[Xelnagahunter]

Usually when a head of staff has reason to break regulations or directives for the purpose of inclusion in the round, it's gonna be based on antagonist activity. Rarely will extended see need for that kind of action. Even if a scientist does become a slime during extended and get forced to sit in the xenobio wing for containment based on station directives, chances are they knew what they were doing enough to be aware of those consequences. If someone wants to go out of their way to include the player and break that directive, they should be aware that someone could file an IR and their character could get in trouble, you chose to play a character that was doing something wrong so I don't see the issue.

[Azande]

I once got a CCIA warning against my captain for lowering the station's thermostats to 13 degrees celsius during a canon Tajaran-event where we had a large group of Taj refugees on board. I wanted the station to be cooler to make them comfortable and we even offered out free jackets at cargo to crew that found it too chilly (although it does not make you cold at 13c)

CCIA promptly overrided my command and then issued a formal warning to me, and told me off.

CCIA should be disabled during events.

[Caelphon]

Time for revival!

 

Anyhow, I have actively disagree with the 'Restrict CCIA during Events'. These events are canon for a reason, you should be staying within the confines of regulations and still allow for RP (I've done this often, roleplay doesn't exclusively mean to break regulations and keep things from going to shit. Sometimes things breaking is what drives a story). 

 

Cooling down the entire station is ... quite frankly a quick way to dampen productivity and could have also maimed Unathi. 

 

You'd be surprised at the dumb shit people do during canon rounds. CCIA should stay, as a way to show IC stupidity will result in IC consequences instead of being told off OOC.