The Place of The Quartermaster

[CampinKiller]

This is the equivalent to using a .50 caliber MG on a rabbit

[furrycactus]

Please tell me this is a late April Fools joke.

[Doxxmedearly]

I would like some clarification here on "Work Order" and "Standard Operation"

I assume standard operation means code green?

Is work order specific and separate from a regular order? When I read this initially, I assumed work order was akin to telling a department to make something for you. Such as a QM fulfilling orders, a chemist with chems, science with equipment, engineering with department upgrades, etc. As in, you can no longer force these departments to do these things for you because you're a head of staff. Which I agree with. 

But where do other requests fall under "work order?" Is asking sec to arrest someone, engineering to fix something, or a janitor to clean something a "work order" or just a regular order? Because these are things that should not be denied no matter what head of staff is asking.

Yes, in theory, a head of staff should be charged with i214 whenever they attempt to order another department around, such as the QM issue. In practice... what officer is going to arrest their head of security when he's providing them with ammunition? Security officers barely police their own officers in my experience. I would like to see, as schev said, more enforcement of this reg, and more watching whitelistees for this kind of stuff. But if you're careful with this and what constitutes "work order," it could be a fine addition.

You will have to be very careful with wording, because there are plenty of petty people who will cross their arms and refuse any head order, which is just going to be a huge mess. And if you do mean any order, well, then I'm going to have to side with the 'wtf" opinions in the thread. It seems like it would be less messy to just make something specific to the QM, IMO.

[Nantei]

5 hours ago, ben10083 said:

Also keep in mind that above situations such as the paramedic being denied access to a department is extremely unlikely to happen, and if it does, the person(s) refusing to allow the person in could be charged with a crime (such as manslaughter if the person died as a result.)

Sure, but it shouldn't be a situation to start with. (Also for particularly hated characters this is not as unlikely as you think. Malik before he got fired is a good example.)

Also does not prevent the other situations I mentioned. Again, with this rule, we have to constantly invoke directive 2 in order to reign in security. As someone who primarily plays non-security heads of staff I hate this. One of the jobs of a whitelisted player is to fix players doing very bad things, like Security being overzealous, roboticists creating death machines for no reason, etc. I should not have to invoke directive 2 to do so. If I wanted to be the Captain, I would ready up as the god damn Captain. Please leave the chain of command alone. I would rather QM be a head of staff than this.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Nantei

[Skull132]

Okay so, as Arrow said, we discussed this in the server leadership channels. Lemme highlight a few things which appear to have been misconstrued, debunk a few myths, and then finally address the role and purpose of the QM. First, The Quote which caused The Outcry:

22 hours ago, Arrow768 said:

Heads of staff will no longer be able to issue work orders to employees from other departments.

Emphasis mine.

Some backstory. In discussing this, we did research into what the current actual policy around the QM's authority is. This is done because history has shown that at least 50% of policy suggestions suggest items which are already implemented, but overshadowed by public myth and misconception. Well, besides discovered this to be partially the case here (more on this in later paragraphs), we also discovered that there exists a wiki page that's attempting to describe the chain of command. And said page says some really interesting things.

Specifically, it indicates that any head of staff is able to issue orders to any personnel on the station. Or perhaps said page can be construed as such. The specific quote is as follows:

Quote

When being given orders they should be treated using the following priority:

The Captain > Your Head of Staff > Other Heads of Staff.

This has one major ramification. All crew have to listen to any head of staff orders. Even if your present head of staff is active; even if said orders are outside of the lane of the head of staff issuing them. And this is a problem.

A chain of command has a few specific points:

• make the flow of legitimate orders clear and simple to follow;
• ensure in the presence of clear accountability of legitimate orders;
• ensure in the traceability of legitimate orders.

All of which are directly undermined by the capacity of any head of staff to issue working orders to any crew.

More definitions real quick. A working order is an order issued that pertains directly to the specific duties of assigned personnel. This isn't a general, "Stop yapping your lips on general net you dipshits!" type of affair, this is a, "Hey, inject this person with this drug, I order it," type of deal. For orders like this, there should only be a direct, linear way these commands can flow. And that flow should be established by the chain of command.

The situation, as presented in this wiki page, would allow for all sorts of weird shit. Like a Head of Staff other than the HoP or Captain authorizing the transfer of materiel without legitimate signatures being present; or the Chief Medical Officer signing a search warrant of the engineering department on grounds of suspicious conduct, instead of the HoS or Captain (or CE, I forget the form). This is completely and utterly unacceptable. It creates orders which are untraceable, creates conflict between the heads of staff, creates confusion among the crew (when the external head of staff's orders conflict with their own), and is overall an unbelievable practice. (As in, I cannot believe something like this even got through.)

Someone said on this thread that removal of this policy will see the Acting Captain role assumed more often. Good, because it should be. (And it was, regularly.) The assuming of the Acting Captain position is necessary to maintain the chain of accountability, and to keep the chain of command clearly defined.

It was also said that this would mean that the CMO has to authorize forensics into medical bay. This is false. We have warrants for a reason. Warrants have fields which describe exactly whose permission is needed, and what for. Lack of compliance with a warrant (obstructing a search covered under a warrant) is against regulation. Corporate regulation stands above orders. Further, it could be argued that the conduct of such an order is within the domain of the HoS, but regs already take care of this bit.

FURTHER.

To address how directives play into this. I would wager heavily that the directives support the view presented by me and Arrow. To quote directive 2:

Quote

Should, during standard operation, the Command Staff be missing a Captain, then it is preferred that all members of the Command Staff present stay on equal terms and act as a singular commanding entity, thus negating the need to promote a specific person to the position of Acting Captain. Under such operations, the Command Staff as a whole carries the authority of the Captain, and can, together, conduct actions that would otherwise require the Captain's approval. In order for the Command Staff to make a Captain level decision, a unanimous vote in support will be required with at least two (2) able command staff.

This means that, in the absence of a Captain or Acting Captain, the voted upon order of all heads of staff is the equivalent of a Captain's order. Not that the absence of a head of staff means you have to listen to any head of staff.

Directive 3:

Quote

Unless stated otherwise, all Departmental Staff are equal in rank, with differing responsibilities and assignments.

Again. With responsibility comes the authority to issue commands. Or, to phrase it in reverse, you can only issue commands on matters that you are responsible for. As per my initial points about the Chain of Command.

Understand that THIS is what Arrow's second post was made with regards to.

But motherfucker, wait, that's not all. I've been now writing this for 20 minutes, trying to extinguish shit that a few malformed ideas can cause. Let's now address the actual subject of this thread.

As I said before, we did a bit of digging into what the in-game texts say about the authority of the QM, same for Directives. And we uncovered the following:

• all CTs and miners that join are said that they must listen to the QM;
• directive 3 directly indicates that the QM is responsible for (and has the authority to command) all cargo technicians and asteroid mining staff.

In addition to this, per the actual job outline of the QM, the QM has the authority to deny illegitimate cargo orders. He does not, however, have the ability to deny legitimate orders. And as per our forms, a legitimate order is an order signed off by the specific head of staff. To put more bluntly, it is the job of the QM to make sure that the paperwork for everything is in order, and that the orders get fulfilled to a reasonable standard.

The proposal to give the QM any authority over legitimate cargo orders is bad. Extremely bad. Because the QM has no reasonable mechanic by which to evaluate whether the ordering head of staff actually has a valid need for the equipment or not. The QM has no responsibility before the funds being used. The only thing the QM must ensure in is that the order's paperwork is fine, and that the order doesn't pose a risk to the cargo staff handling it (and that it's not outright illegal).

Should we ever give the QM authority to deny legitimate orders, then hoh boy, are we opening another can of worms. Again, authority comes with responsibility; or to flip it, with responsibility comes authority. The QM has no responsibility to maintain the functionality of other departments, he has no responsibility to ensure in the proper spending of station funds. Thus, he cannot be given the authority over deciding what materiel is required to fulfill those demands. He only has the responsibility to ensure in the proper function of the cargo bay, the proper handling of cargo, the proper management of station logistics (when to send orders, how long to wait for for a bulk shipment, etc.). None of those give him the ability to outright deny an order, unless of course, the paperwork filled is not legitimate, or the item is illegal or dangerous to the cargo bay.

FIN.

I lied. Read the addendum a few posts below.

[geeves]

That explanation makes it much better, thank you. This must be a good reminder to not loosely throw out statements then, lest it lead to "extinguishing shitthat a few malformed ideas can cause".

I can get behind this, then.

[Spider]

arrow man bad

[Skull132]

Also, as an addendum to my post, after getting initial reactions on Discord.

A legitimate cargo order is an order authorized by the respective head of staff. Specially if department specific equipment (medical equipment, weapons, etc. etc. etc.) or department funds are concerned. When in doubt, get the department head to sign off on it, verbally or non-verbally. The problem with the current system is that anyone can put in orders, and there's no specific form to fill out, I will grant. But this should be the operating principle.

With regards to the matter of ordering weapons at round start. ICly, this is an order that a QM should not question. The procurement of weapons and stocking the armoury is not his responsibility, ergo, he does not have authority over it. Only the Captain can question the HoS's conduct on this count. So attempting to restrict this is absolutely a failure to perform. However, it should be considered powergaming per OOC rules. Sometimes, IC and OOC rules do not match, that's how it is.

[Doxxmedearly]

Alrighty. As long as that kind of stuff is considered powergaming, then this is a good clarification addition for IC operations. 

[Garnascus]

Yeah that makes sense then skull. 

[Nantei]

That assuages a lot of my fears. Thank you. Sorry for acting aggressive.

[Scheveningen]

The turnout is still awful, though, because nobody short of the HOS or the captain, or far more unlikely being the entirety of command staff, can order a security officer to do anything, because whatever constitutes as a work order is incredibly fast and loose. And considering all it takes is one head of staff to vote nay on an issue, there will be plenty of issues where a captain-level decision cannot be made to reign an issue in.

The clarification regarding the role and rights of the QM is fine, that is exactly what everyone sought out for in the first place, but placing arbitrary restrictions on the heads of staff when the problem is game balance and how awful/unenjoyable it is to play QM/CT, is once again like using a .50BMG on a rabbit and calling it a good hunt. The authority/role clarifications on the QM alone would've been a fine turnout to this thread, but instating policy arbitrarily because of the incredibly infrequent cases of abuse makes me think nobody knows what they're doing around here.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Scheveningen

[ben10083]

9 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

The turnout is still awful, though, because nobody short of the HOS or the captain, or far more unlikely being the entirety of command staff, can order a security officer to do anything, because whatever constitutes as a work order is incredibly fast and loose. And considering all it takes is one head of staff to vote nay on an issue, there will be plenty of issues where a captain-level decision cannot be made to reign an issue in.

I do not see a problem with this. Keep in mind that regs exist also to limit security authority, and situations where this is applicable can usually be dealt with via regs. 

 

Also this is a non-issue, as the same arguement can be said for any position, as they have similar restrictions (EXAMPLE: Bartender can only be ordered by HoP and/or Captain)

[Nantei]

3 hours ago, ben10083 said:

I do not see a problem with this. Keep in mind that regs exist also to limit security authority, and situations where this is applicable can usually be dealt with via regs. 

 

Also this is a non-issue, as the same arguement can be said for any position, as they have similar restrictions (EXAMPLE: Bartender can only be ordered by HoP and/or Captain)

The regs exist, but are rarely enforced without captain level authority, partially defeating the purpose. It's very hard to get officers to arrest each other unless it's very flagrant, or there's the threat of breaking a valid order. I do still think it would be better if it just respected the presence of current heads.

Also a Bartender cannot arrest people. Security tends to need reigning in the most of any department when they get overzealous. I say this as a security main.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Nantei

[N8-Toe]

so on the topic of the QM and their authority. I do believe they are in an awkward spot.   I think they should be removed from the control of the HoP and the QM made a mini head. command channel access, but non voting on any matters, and given authority in regards to station supply and finance. and finally, should have the ability to deny orders from heads of staff. 

 

why? two reasons one IC and one OOC. IC the QM is the supply chief, they have goons, they handle sensitive matters and have a level of trust by the corporation. It makes sense a for profit corporation would have someone dedicated to making coin/managing assets and supply and them having a seat at the management table. OOC the QM has as of right now little power, as if someone doesn't like your decisions there are TWO people over you they can tattle too to get it reversed. As well as QM is a great role for people wanting to get a taste of leadership, and that should be expanded so people without a command whitelist can give a minor leadership role a try and see if it is for them. 

[Skull132]

On 11/09/2019 at 05:41, Scheveningen said:

The turnout is still awful, though, because nobody short of the HOS or the captain, or far more unlikely being the entirety of command staff, can order a security officer to do anything, because whatever constitutes as a work order is incredibly fast and loose. And considering all it takes is one head of staff to vote nay on an issue, there will be plenty of issues where a captain-level decision cannot be made to reign an issue in.

A work order is defined well enough. See my original post, I even highlighted it where I defined it. To use more simple words: a work order is an order that doesn't pertain to adhering to SOP, regulation, or directives. It is an order that directly concerns your duties as X job. The ones only your head of staff can issue.

Further. Only the HoS (and whoever is above him in the CoC) should have direct control over officers. To propose anything else is to permit dumb shit. If you, as another head of staff, want a person arrested, then flag security about him violating a regulation. It is up to the HoS, though, to manage the resources used to carry out this arrest.

Imagine a scenario where the HoS would prefer to keep a few officers in reserve during an emergency. Imagine the CMO seeing one of those reserve/loitering officers and ordering him to deal with/arrest a doctor that is ignoring orders. The order, in your world, would be legitimate, and the officer would have to comply. Voila, that reserve officer is now gone, the HoS has to deal with a new inmate (which might take more than 1 officer, depending), and best of all, he's not immediately aware of this! What joy. Instead, how it should go, is that the CMO reports the violation of regulations to security/the HoS, and then the HoS will allocate resources to handle it when and as he can. If he has a good reason to not prioritize this arrest, then now he can do so. If this results in damage to medical, then it's the HoS's responsibility and he will pay for it.

Regarding the Command Staff decisions deal. It's not like there exists a mechanic in the Directive to bypass the need to vote. A mechanic which arguably should be employed once the station turns to shit enough that rapid captain level decisions are necessary. If only the command staff could post up a singular person to act as the captain. An acting captain, of sorts. Oh, wait. Snide aside, both models have specific uses. The voting deal works best if you have most heads of staff present, but no captain. In that case, most departments can function fine, CoC wise, and the only things that require the vote are major decisions/conflicts. If most heads of staff are absent, or if the situation is picking up speed, then an Acting Captain is arguably more efficient to use. When a directive provides multiple tools, then there is usually a good reason for this.

Oh and, regarding the word "Arbitrary". Considering that I was able to describe and demonstrate the presence of a cohesive system, when it comes to the CoC and my interpretation of it, it is anything but arbitrary. Consider consulting a dictionary, and actually trying to analyze the thoughts you were presented with.

16 hours ago, Nantei said:

The regs exist, but are rarely enforced without captain level authority, partially defeating the purpose. It's very hard to get officers to arrest each other unless it's very flagrant, or there's the threat of breaking a valid order. I do still think it would be better if it just respected the presence of current heads.

Officers are expected to follow regulation. Ergo should be able to arrest each other when a regulation violation is identified. Obviously this is a difficult case, but permitting the other heads of staff to step into the lane of the HoS for this case sounds a bit arbitrary, all things considered. Ultimately, it's not (hopefully) a standard situation that an officer breaks regs, ergo, invoking acting captaincy to deal with it is probably fine.

15 hours ago, N8-Toe said:

so on the topic of the QM and their authority. I do believe they are in an awkward spot.   I think they should be removed from the control of the HoP and the QM made a mini head. command channel access, but non voting on any matters, and given authority in regards to station supply and finance. and finally, should have the ability to deny orders from heads of staff. 

This would start infringing on the HoP's line. The QM is not qualified enough to deal with managing the station's funds. He's responsible for fulfilling orders, not managing the funds for them (at least not directly). If the system was more complex, he'd be responsible for making sure that the items can be ordered for said amount of money and so on, but ye. He's also charged with managing the day-to-day life at the cargo bay, which is a role still necessary due to the HoP also being responsible for service.

[Nantei]

12 minutes ago, Skull132 said:

Officers are expected to follow regulation. Ergo should be able to arrest each other when a regulation violation is identified. Obviously this is a difficult case, but permitting the other heads of staff to step into the lane of the HoS for this case sounds a bit arbitrary, all things considered. Ultimately, it's not (hopefully) a standard situation that an officer breaks regs, ergo, invoking acting captaincy to deal with it is probably fine.

Expected and do are unfortunately not always the case. I honestly don't have much issue with most heads stepping into Security when there is no HoS because Security needs the most micromanagement of any department, and I would expect whitelisted players to be pretty familiar with regulations. Plus regulations are very simple to learn icly, so it's reasonable every head would know them decently.

I'm not saying my CMO is going to go in and tell Security how to engage in combat, but she will order them to stop hurting people if they are stepping over the line, or ask them to chill out if they are being overzealous. As I said, it is often very difficult to get Security to arrest itself without head authority. Anyone who has played a civilian role in, well, any recent memory, should be able to attest to that. We have a lot of good players now who will police the other officers, but they aren't always around, and I'm still of the opinion that head's should be able to fix it icly without having to enact captain authority, provided there is no HoS. Same as I am fine to let orders go to any department without a head. Going over the current head is a big no-no, but if there is no head, I don't have an issue with a head stopping obviously wrong things.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Nantei

[Scheveningen]

Officers will never arrest one another for anything short of committing one-man terrorism. Heads of staff serve(d) as oversight authority in case anyone screws up in a manner that is unsatisfactory for the job. There is a concept called "making do", and when the head staff of this server make decisions to influence the nature of improvising in non-ideal circumstances to be increasingly harder in-game by putting more hurdles in front of everyone to satisfy a vocal minority, that is an incompetent policy decision.

[Skull132]

24 minutes ago, Scheveningen said:

Officers will never arrest one another for anything short of committing one-man terrorism. Heads of staff serve(d) as oversight authority in case anyone screws up in a manner that is unsatisfactory for the job. There is a concept called "making do", and when the head staff of this server make decisions to influence the nature of improvising in non-ideal circumstances to be increasingly harder in-game by putting more hurdles in front of everyone to satisfy a vocal minority, that is an incompetent policy decision.

I would highly suggest you think your decisions through to their logical consequences.

What you just said is, again, completely oblivious to the concepts that define a Chain of Command. "Any head of staff should be able to determine whether you've screwed up," is the claim you present. Why should a CE have any say about how Doctors carry out their duties? Again, he has no direct responsibilities before the other department's staff, ergo, he is not in a position to evaluate their performance like this. Now, when voted into Acting Captaincy, he accepts said responsibility, and with it, gains the authority necessary to conduct himself as he describes.

2 hours ago, Nantei said:

Expected and do are unfortunately not always the case. I honestly don't have much issue with most heads stepping into Security when there is no HoS because Security needs the most micromanagement of any department, and I would expect whitelisted players to be pretty familiar with regulations. Plus regulations are very simple to learn icly, so it's reasonable every head would know them decently.

Sure, reality will have its own rules that do not always overlap with the written ones. If shits starts happening fast enough, then it is possible that an acting captain isn't elected and the heads of staff present start carrying out general leadership duties.

But. It is important that the de jure definition of the chain of command remain as clear and as simple to understand as possible. The way myself and Arrow present it does this: the responsibility and authority of each head of staff is very clearly defined. The mechanics to elevate it are very clearly defined. There's no need for flow charts on who to listen to: you just listen to whoever is directly above you, gaps skipped.

Further, without pillaging the captain's equipment, no head of staff even gets access to the security channel to do the micromanaging required. And once you're already pillaging the captain's equipment (or I guess if you're the HoP), then you might as well assume Acting Captaincy.

[Scheveningen]

Do heads of staff need a doctorate in medicine all of a sudden to declare malpractice because a high-strung doctor cut someone's head off in surgery? Do they also need a degree in law to determine what a grand theft is when they're a victim of being stuck up and escorted to an ATM? Do they also need to be an engineer to determine that delaminating the supermatter constitutes as either Neglect of Duty with Serious Consequences or Sabotage/Terrorist Acts?

The Chain of Command is not to be taken to mean that you must be incompetent in regards to addressing matters slightly out of your lane with a certain degree of common sense. I am well aware of how the established CoC functions all around the world with varying spins and interpretations on how the system works, and yet in regards to fulfilling the mission, the CoC alone will not solve problems. Having a very exact plan and knowing who to employ to address those problems is how you solve problems. And when a crucial leader is missing in some respect (such as reporting for "dental", or they are in the clink for a DUI), it is the job of other present leadership to pick up the slack not being covered. You wouldn't just leave dirty laundry of someone else piling up, would you?

There are countless amounts of occasions in standard gameplay where someone with 0 experience or authority in leadership inquires with a head of staff to call the ball on what a proper resolution to an issue is. If their own departmental head of staff is absent, they will step up to ask another head of staff to help them with their issue, whether it is a personnel problem or an issue with complex problem-solving. That is what heads of staff are for, to give people the means to succeed in their job, whether they're direct subordinates or indirect. It is not stepping on anyone's toes if there is literally nobody who exists to step on their toes for. This is how this has worked for ages past and it's success rate is dependent on how skillfully the head of staff chooses to handle it. If the head of staff is nonspecific or incompetent in addressing the matter directly, that is on them. And that's perfectly fine! IC issue.

Further, consider that most heads of staff not playing captain have very little intention of taking acting captaincy considering how easy it is to get accused of exceeding official powers or supposedly powergaming by taking the spare ID and then instantly taking command of every department. This has occurred countless amounts of times even when an acting captain and proper direction is necessary. People complain and bitch, and thus many people outright avoid taking acting captaincy when it isn't absolutely necessary. If I want to play [insert department head here], it is because I want to play [insert department head here]. If I wanted to play captain, I would join as one. Lot of people are the same way, yet they and I both understand that the round-by-round basis with chaotic antagonists means you have to work off-the-cuff while still representing the spirit of being a good leader and head of staff.

If a line leader is absent and a department is suffering without the line leader's direction, I shouldn't need to take acting captaincy just to help set another department's affairs back in order, as one department screaming that they're lost all of a sudden isn't as pressing of an emergency as raiders murderfucking the station 2; electric boogaloo. If I'm playing HOS and I ask/order someone to do something and they say "no, I won't help you" or "no, I can't help you", I will find someone else to do it. That's fine, I'm not going to enforce it because it's fucking stupid to arrest someone not in my department for not doing something I requested during a non-pressing issue. But if I make a legitimate request as the HOS to the medical bay to not immediately release a serial killer who got hospitalized back out into the open, then I damn well expect that people understand the serious consequences in literally allowing a serial killer to go free, and that someone will be charged for not listening to simple instructions.

Instead, a paramedic can act all smug and malicious and otherwise break roleplay sense and just let the serial killer that security spent time and investment to use force in detaining (particularly to protect the crew from the serial killer), to immediately go free because "lol, it's the policy, deal with it". Granted, I understand the reputation of security. The department deserves it.

Yet Neglect of Duty still stands as a regulation. And so does its "with Serious Consequences" variant which includes the shittier aspect of disobeying instructions with a basis on common sense and good roleplay. The two regulations are both designed with the intent in mind of establishing social consequences for any behavior that disenfranchises productivity, sabotages a working atmosphere or otherwise endangers others, dependent on a scalar. If you screw your job up, there should be consequences regardless of whether there is a head of staff above you or not, if it is reported. If you do your job well, there are positive consequences of job satisfaction and otherwise not getting in trouble unless some other head of staff is on a powertrip to nag every person on the manifest. Those people can get bent, sure, fuck those people. I do not play in such a way, though, and neither do my more prominent command player peers who probably play this game more than I do.

While it is pants-on-head retarded for a HOS to (not citing anyone in particular);

1. Overthrow command by themselves because of a disagreement
2. Rambo all security encounters by themselves with no intention of using their team to deal with matters
3. Threaten and coerce other department staff with negative consequences if an indirect subordinate does not fulfill something menial
4. Be otherwise argumentative, combative and hostile towards everyone, especially towards their peers
5. Essentially enable themselves and their department to be incredibly overbearing on the rest of the crew to the point of wanting to make every character on the station just go to cryo

...I think we're of the understanding that it is just as pants-on-head fucking retarded to punish everyone who doesn't do this with stupid policy changes, instead of just directly addressing the real problem players or characters by throwing them (or at least the unrepentant ones who aren't trying to get better) into the trash.

No matter how many rules or policies you pass, malicious people are still going to find their way around them, hence the pointlessness of establishing these policies in the first place. People who are normally predisposed to breaking roleplay conventions to act like an asshole, or people who generally break the rules, do not really care about policies or rules. Many people don't even read the forums. 

But let's say this:

Quote

"Heads of staff are no longer allowed to issue work orders to other department staff not under their own command."

Is meant to mean:

Quote

"Heads of staff may not enforce work orders to other department staff not under their own command."

Then great! I love it. No more is there the threat of arresting the quartermaster by the HOS just because the QM told the warden to fuck off with a non-pertinent order that just so happens to be stamped by the HOS. It's a powerful "get fucked" to any power-tripping head of staff. Because surely, the only thing people care about is that there isn't major consequences (fines, arrests, things that will take you out of the round indeterminately) over petty arguments or disagreements. 

However, because the first statement does not match directly what the second statement does, people will take the first statement and run a particularly malicious triathalon with it around other heads of staff players that are actually playing in good faith, all the while the worse off heads of staff still get to stick around because the guideline in particular can still be rather easily circumvented by giving yourself acting captain unnecessarily just to power-win an argument.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Scheveningen

[ben10083]

3 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

Do heads of staff need a doctorate in medicine all of a sudden to declare malpractice because a high-strung doctor cut someone's head off in surgery? Do they also need a degree in law to determine what a grand theft is when they're a victim of being stuck up and escorted to an ATM? Do they also need to be an engineer to determine that delaminating the supermatter constitutes as either Neglect of Duty with Serious Consequences or Sabotage/Terrorist Acts?

You don't need to know how to do the act to know when its being done wrong (I.e, HoS is trained to know what violates what.)

3 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

There are countless amounts of occasions in standard gameplay where someone with 0 experience or authority in leadership inquires with a head of staff to call the ball on what a proper resolution to an issue is. If their own departmental head of staff is absent, they will step up to ask another head of staff to help them with their issue, whether it is a personnel problem or an issue with complex problem-solving. That is what heads of staff are for, to give people the means to succeed in their job, whether they're direct subordinates or indirect. It is not stepping on anyone's toes if there is literally nobody who exists to step on their toes for. This is how this has worked for ages past and it's success rate is dependent on how skillfully the head of staff chooses to handle it. If the head of staff is nonspecific or incompetent in addressing the matter directly, that is on them. And that's perfectly fine! IC issue.

There is nothing stopping you from recommending what to do for other departments, and in most cases they will comply with the request.

3 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

Instead, a paramedic can act all smug and malicious and otherwise break roleplay sense and just let the serial killer that security spent time and investment to use force in detaining (particularly to protect the crew from the serial killer), to immediately go free because "lol, it's the policy, deal with it". Granted, I understand the reputation of security. The department deserves it.

Actually that is aiding and abetting, as it is official policy (under corporate regulations under prisoner rights) that criminals are to be treated post-haste, but should have a security escort with them or at the very least ensured that they are returned to the brig. (also above behavior in your example can also be dealt with oocly)

3 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

1. Overthrow command by themselves because of a disagreement
2. Rambo all security encounters by themselves with no intention of using their team to deal with matters
3. Threaten and coerce other department staff with negative consequences if an indirect subordinate does not fulfill something menial
4. Be otherwise argumentative, combative and hostile towards everyone, especially towards their peers
5. Essentially enable themselves and their department to be incredibly overbearing on the rest of the crew to the point of wanting to make every character on the station just go to cryo

Unable to do any of the above due to the following reasons

1. go againsts regulations

2. Violates ooc rules (unless proper escalation!)

3. can easilly be stopped with a command vote

4. Security can easily be enforced via ic and ooc rules

Overall, stop with the negative stigma towards security players, its rather annoying seeing everyone see security as some powergaming salivating at the mouth to exercise their authority.

Also, I feel you are overreacting, so far I have seem no such incident occurring the rounds I played after this policy was enacted, and no indication that it will happen down the line.

[Nantei]

6 hours ago, Skull132 said:

Further, without pillaging the captain's equipment, no head of staff even gets access to the security channel to do the micromanaging required. And once you're already pillaging the captain's equipment (or I guess if you're the HoP), then you might as well assume Acting Captaincy.

You don't need to be listening in to the security channel to correct bad behavior. When I am doing this, it is almost always something I personally witnessed. 

[Scheveningen]

9 hours ago, ben10083 said:

Overall, stop with the negative stigma towards security players, its rather annoying seeing everyone see security as some powergaming salivating at the mouth to exercise their authority.

Did you even read my post? Given you only picked selectively what to respond to that's the impression I have at this point. Stop replying, please.

[Bear]

So riddle me this. The QM is responsible for the cargo dept and mining running efficiently and doing their job... except they can't actually do anything if they don't. Sure they can go whine to an HoP or Captain... assuming they're lucky enough to have one? What so they do when they do not?

They are tasked with a department and given responsibility to run it with no authority. Make it a command roll. Easy fix. HoP already has enough to deal with imho.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Bear

[ben10083]

7 hours ago, Bear said:

So riddle me this. The QM is responsible for the cargo dept and mining running efficiently and doing their job... except they can't actually do anything if they don't. Sure they can go whine to an HoP or Captain... assuming they're lucky enough to have one? What so they do when they do not?

They are tasked with a department and given responsibility to run it with no authority. Make it a command roll. Easy fix. HoP already has enough to deal with imho.

Unsure what you mean, the QM is in the chain of command (as per directives) and his orders can be enforced by regs. He has the authority to order the cargo department employees.