Discussion about Security No.852

[Guest]

Alright, people can't get their point across because they aren't staff members with special OOC text color and instead get lost in the endless sea of blue. The questions raised in OOC chat, by my memory, were:

• Corporate regulations being broken and/or stupid
• An Ideal Officer
  
• Giving out pardons
  
• Proper escalation of force
  
• Captain butting into Security and/or other Heads butting into other departments
  
• Elena not having friends Head & Captain stance towards the crew

 

If you remember any other points I missed, feel free to add them. Ready, set, go.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

Key:

ex·plic·it [adj] - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

cir·cum·stance [n] - a fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action.

 

• Corp Regs being broken and/or stupid

I can understand why people would interpret rules as being stupid because they don't allow you to do whatever you want. Corp Regs being broken? Uh, no. They serve a purpose, and it's to be vague as possible so that it allows for personnel to determine for themselves what constitutes as breaching Corp Reg and what does not, not unlike most federal laws. It may or may not cover explicit circumstances, that is the point. It is not about being right or wrong, it is about following and enforcing the law.

 

• Ideal Officer Conundrum

Player issue. Character issue. Not my problem, nor is it anyone's OOC problem. Bad officers will be asked to curb their own behavior, and then told to, if they don't listen. Three strikes, they're out, excluding explicit circumstances.

 

• Giving out pardons

Don't do these. Ever. If someone is guilty of a crime and the evidence says so, don't try pardoning them. That's completely off-limits, given you're saying that, the criminal is completely absolved of their sins and that they did nothing wrong and it's ok for other people to do what they did. In addition you're telling security that they fucked up big time.

 

• Proper EoF

What Voltage said earlier. Ask, tell, make them. Simple, right? If you warned them like fucking twice and they're still persisting, they deserve whatever they get and they aren't allowed to complain at all.

 

• Chain of Command tissue issues

Captain's word supercedes everyone, unless what he/she says is unanimously retarded and against the rules.

 

• Elena not havink fren

She's Russian. Russians are very angry individuals. suka blyat blyat

[Blue]

Corporate regs: They server their purpose. Just botch "Insulting an officer" and you're good.

Ideal officer: Sets out warnings for minor crimes, asks the person to detest and comply before arresting them, uses tools of arrest in the right order (flash > baton > taser (you can put pepperspray between flash and baton, but only if you're a scrub who thinks that's actually useful for anything)), doesn't put the highest sentence possible because they can, doesn't abuse the "Insulting an officer" law, doesn't abuse ANY loopholes in the law to spite people. The law is not your personal weapon to use on people for the wrong reasons.

Pardon: While it's not allowed ICly, I think it should be. The HoS should be allowed to give out pardons at their discretion, if they believe the individual will not commit any more crimes (I'd suggest loyalty implanting the criminal, but I still think those things are OP). Should not be abused.

Proper escalation of force: Do they have a weapon? If yes, get one out. If not, proceed with caution. Do they have an aggressive nature? If yes, have a weapon handy. If not, proceed. Are they violent? If yes, take them down, if not, proceed. Are they threatening you? If yes, call for backup. If not, proceed to arrest.

Chain of command: I'm gonna but in to what Delta said (ironylol) and point out that the captain should NOT, NEVER EVER EVER but in to security affairs if there's an active HoS involved. He's more of a head of heads, let the actual head of the department handle it. A captain that acts like a HoS just because "his word is supreme" or bullshit like that is a terrible condom.

[Skull132]

• Corporate regulations being broken and/or stupid
  
  Nope. See, "Idea Officer".
• An Ideal Officer
  
  • Fluid in his execution under any situation. Able to maneuver around any verbal engagement without, at the very least, agitating the other side further. Able to respond to any physical situation with a proper application of force. Has an answer, or knows who to refer to.
  • Respectful towards any individual. Including his opponents. While on duty, does not drink, slander, insult. Treats every individual, even if they are providing verbal resistance, with respect on par with a normal member of the crew.
    
  • Restrained in his escalation of force, up until a certain point. There is no need to escalate a verbal situation, try to calm the subject instead, and make them understand.
    
  • Reasonable in any situation. Dude, you're a human, dealing with humans. Do you really need to arrest that guy for hopping the counter for the first time? Report it, warn him, politely, and move on. Take pride in your work as a means to warn people and steer them away from stupid shit, instead of simply arresting them.
    
  • Humble in his conduct. He understands that, despite his job being challenging, and despite others potentially not seeing it, he is doing this of his own free will and choice. He is able to find his own mistakes, and admit them, while taking responsibility for them. Even if said mistakes must be admitted infront of an angry/disliked individual.

[*]Giving out pardons

I don't really know. Honestly, just be reasonable in who you arrest, and what for. Ideally, you wouldn't arrive at a situation where a pardon is required. Beyond that, if the arrest was shitty/under dubious circumstance, and isn't going to break anyone's back, does it really matter? As long as there is no larger issue at play, I'd leave it up to Captain's discretion.

[*]Proper escalation of force

• With words - do not escalate to force. Make sure your intent is clear, and that the subject understands. Ask for compliance, explain the circumstances and reasoning. Ask for a second time. Inform them that you will be arresting them. Execute with minimal force required (flash; baton if they have shades).
• At threat of violence - ensure in the safety of yourself first and foremost, ensure in the safety of the personnel around you, ensure in the safety of the criminal last.
  
  Before someone starts twisting my words. This does not mean you get to shoot them, because their safety is a non-issue. Most of the time, security confrontations that escalate take place with minimal bystanders and with the target armed with a melee weapon, at a disadvantage. At that point, maintain distance, ask for compliance while showcasing your capacity to exercise force (taser/baton out). Should they not heed the warning, or break the stand-off, neutralize them. Always strive to ensure that you are in control of the situation.

[*]Captain butting into Security and/or other Heads butting into other departments

No. One of the worst sins you could conduct. You lack knowledge, you lack the expertise of the head you are trying to emulate. Even the Captain. Furthermore, you show disrespect to the head in question, and you make it clear to the subordinates that undermining authority is fine (by the virtue of setting an example).

Yes. There will be situations that demand it. But those are not to be expected. So unless there is a critical, "THERE'S A LIVE BOMB IN THERE, DO NOT ENTER!" type situation, prefer to relay.

Let me quote myself on sticking to your lane from an old thread about leadership:

Know Your Lane, Stick to It

• For a Head of Staff, their lane is defined as their department, the personnel involved, and actions concerning. As a Head of Staff, you should be primarily focused on your lane and its problems.
• Don't hop lanes (unnecessarily). If the situation is not critical, try not to provide even the tiniest comment regarding conduct, procedure, duties, etcetera to the personnel under the command of another Head of Staff. Doing so will serve to confuse personnel, undermine the leadership of the Head of Staff that is suppose to be responsible for them, and make him look impotent. Instead, contact the other Head of Staff, politely inform him of the issue, and let him sort it out.
  
• The latter note includes the tiniest of things, truly. Police your staff, and let others police theirs.
  
• If you need to stick your nose into someone else's business, make sure it's unavoidable, and you have damn solid ground to stand on. Otherwise the other Heads of Staff reserve the full right to have your arse (in my book).
  
• No, the HoP does not have the liberty to take Acting Captain as they please. No, the HoP should not stick around in security unless it's a matter of paperwork or an emergency. No, the HoP is not a replacement HoS; the Internal Security department can manage itself, stay the hell out of it!

[*]Elena not having friends

Okay. There's being high and mighty all the time. There's putting a stone wall between you and your team. But there's also a part for the soft and trooper-oriented leader. Not for all, mind you, and carries risks of you losing your authority. I'd suggest keeping your authority, because you have a lot of it, and putting it under the least threat. If it means running with a small count of friends, then so be it. If you can emulate that style of leadership by cutting yourself a few notches lower without losing your authority, then try it. But be careful.

[Guest]

• Corp regs:
  
  I really do think that baystation regulations need a revision for our own server. When people start to question why certain rules are there, it's a clear sign to have a second look at it. I personally think that aditional harassment charge needs to be added, hooliganism definition broadened to pranks, and neglect of duty redefined. The thing is, you say that 'you can't pardon', but under current definition 50% of the staff would end up in the brig during the shift, because of how sloppy and generally bad their work habits are. Maybe aditional smaller charge added like a minor neglect, to split things like having a dirty workplace and not doing your job from things like blowing up science by accident.

 

• Elena not having friends
  
  Okay. There's being high and mighty all the time. There's putting a stone wall between you and your team. But there's also a part for the soft and trooper-oriented leader. Not for all, mind you, and carries risks of you losing your authority. I'd suggest keeping your authority, because you have a lot of it, and putting it under the least threat. If it means running with a small count of friends, then so be it. If you can emulate that style of leadership by cutting yourself a few notches lower without losing your authority, then try it. But be careful.

 

That point was more like a self-centered joke, but thanks for bringing this to my attention. The other reason Elena keeps her distance is because she belives it is crutial to mentaining impartialty. No person can count on themselves not to be biased, even if they are loyalty implanted, so they should detach themselves from their personnel as much as possible.

[Skull132]

That point was more like a self-centered joke, but thanks for bringing this to my attention. The other reason Elena keeps her distance is because she belives it is crutial to mentaining impartialty. No person can count on themselves not to be biased, even if they are loyalty implanted, so they should detach themselves from their personnel as much as possible.

 

That's a valid fear to have. And if you don't want to test the calmer waters because of that, then that's completely fair and fine. Encouraged, actually, as that approach is comfortable to you now.

As a means to broaden perspective, though, you can get closer to your team without becoming unnecessarily biased. My personal means of accomplishing it is keeping track of when I speak in a biased manner, and when I don't. You'll see me add, "But I'm biased [on this topic]," at the end of certain paragraphs, or flat out declaring that that which follows is either personal or biased opinion.

 

---

---

 

Tangents about leadership aside. If corporate regs are bothering you and other security players, then see what you can come up with.

However, I'd like you to outline a goal for such an endevour before going at it.

[Guest]

Tangents about leadership aside. If corporate regs are bothering you and other security players, then see what you can come up with.

However, I'd like you to outline a goal for such an endevour before going at it.

 

Yes, I understand. Lack of clear end goal has been an issue for a while now, where people either push their own or destructive ideas. Democracy does that, I guess.

My goal would be to make clearer guidelines to eliminate workplace chucklefuckery and fighting, possibly without being a humourless faschist. Currently, if or not you'll get punished for giving wrong pills as a doctor or depressurizing half of the station through your own stupidity depends on your standing with the head in question. I am guilty of this as well, even though I try to reduce it by not charging people for things I would allow more liked people to do which results with me playing a devil's advocate a lot of the times.

Other example would be the station gangbanging on a less liked crewmember, insulting and harassing them, but only having the person in question punished when he insults someone.

Clearer corp regs guidelines for neglect and harassment would reduce the above given issues, as well as help people understand what and what not to do.

[Guest]

It's very difficult to balance a regulation that honestly teeters on whether or not the offending criminal was intending to be damaging within the workplace.

Neglect is one of these regulations. Neglect of duty assumes that, you failed to perform all of your duties of your job, you ignored the potential risks that comes with your job, you made a critical mistake because you were not cautious... the list goes on, but this link might do it better justice than I can describe. If we had anything like that in the Corp Regs, ehhh. Maybe it'd be easier for security officers/related heads of staff to determine what is or isn't willful neglect.

Or it'd be a fucking waste of time because heads of staff would potentially interpret this as free game to annoy the living piss out of their subordinates over really minor errors (read as: a mistake that could not have been predicted to escalate in a manner of mild severity such as getting glomped by an evil slime).

But hopefully it won't come to that, I have faith that a solid majority of the heads of staff know what they're doing.

And before you say; Delta, why are you trying to put a cork on the suspension of disbelief we all know and love and attempt to apply real life instances into a freaking griefy space man game?!

Might have to do with the fact that this game is pretty much based off of real life or media-based instances anyway, but there's a lot of knowledge you can take from sources like I linked above. Corp Reg doesn't really need an overhaul perse, it just needs finetuning to be more effective and flexible.

[Jamini]

Captain butting into Security and/or other Heads butting into other departments

No. One of the worst sins you could conduct. You lack knowledge, you lack the expertise of the head you are trying to emulate. Even the Captain. Furthermore, you show disrespect to the head in question, and you make it clear to the subordinates that undermining authority is fine (by the virtue of setting an example).

Yes. There will be situations that demand it. But those are not to be expected. So unless there is a critical, "THERE'S A LIVE BOMB IN THERE, DO NOT ENTER!" type situation, prefer to relay.

Let me quote myself on sticking to your lane from an old thread about leadership:

Know Your Lane, Stick to It

[*]For a Head of Staff, their lane is defined as their department, the personnel involved, and actions concerning. As a Head of Staff, you should be primarily focused on your lane and its problems.

[*]Don't hop lanes (unnecessarily). If the situation is not critical, try not to provide even the tiniest comment regarding conduct, procedure, duties, etcetera to the personnel under the command of another Head of Staff. Doing so will serve to confuse personnel, undermine the leadership of the Head of Staff that is suppose to be responsible for them, and make him look impotent. Instead, contact the other Head of Staff, politely inform him of the issue, and let him sort it out.

[*]The latter note includes the tiniest of things, truly. Police your staff, and let others police theirs.

[*]If you need to stick your nose into someone else's business, make sure it's unavoidable, and you have damn solid ground to stand on. Otherwise the other Heads of Staff reserve the full right to have your arse (in my book).

[*]No, the HoP does not have the liberty to take Acting Captain as they please. No, the HoP should not stick around in security unless it's a matter of paperwork or an emergency. No, the HoP is not a replacement HoS; the Internal Security department can manage itself, stay the hell out of it!

 

There is a particular issue I have with "sticking to your lane" at all times. This is almost specifically related to security.

If a department completely lacks an active head of staff and is clearly not doing their job properly, there needs to be a clause that allows command (as a whole) to step in and intervene. This isn't a case of undermining that department's head, but rather taking control of a situation that is getting/gets out of hand. Security is a particularly egregious example, as applying neglect of duty to an officer is virtually impossible without a head of security. while many officers (Not heads of security. Generic officers) seem to think that they have the right to order other departments around. (Such as ordering DNC on a dead antagonist, or demanding that engineers drop repairing a serious breach to fix the brig)

Personally I feel that it should be mandatory that acting heads be assigned to departments that lack one, rather than optional. Both as a stepping stone for players to get moved into the whitelist, and so that departments that lack a coordinator at least have one person who is responsible to organize them. If heads of staff are expected to stay within their lane at all times, barring exceptional emergencies, then you absolutely must have an overseer in all departments at all times, not just in emergencies.

Also, staff who are disrespectful to any head of staff should be subject to review/report. While I do feel insulting an officer is a crime that should be removed from the books, insulting a department head, even if they aren't your own, is a very good way to get yourself suspended or fired in any job. Especially if they take offense. Just because they aren't your boss doesn't make it okay to be rude or dismissive of them. They still outrank you.

Edit: Fixed formatting so I stop breaking the forums. That was unusual and interesting

Edited March 9, 2015 by Guest

[Skull132]

There is a particular issue I have with "sticking to your lane" at all times. This is almost specifically related to security.

If a department completely lacks an active head of staff and is clearly not doing their job properly, there needs to be a clause that allows command (as a whole) to step in and intervene. This isn't a case of undermining that department's head, but rather taking control of a situation that is getting/gets out of hand. Security is a particularly egregious example, as applying neglect of duty to an officer is virtually impossible without a head of security. while many officers (Not heads of security. Generic officers) seem to think that they have the right to order other departments around. (Such as ordering DNC on a dead antagonist, or demanding that engineers drop repairing a serious breach to fix the brig)

 

You misunderstand the point behind my guidelines. I made a point of writing them to be as aggressive and firm as possible. Obviously there are situations which require you to go off the reservation. There will be a situations where you are forced to say, "Skull, fuck yo words. Imma go against them fully." And that's fine. But these guidelines aren't made to account for them. If you write down that liberty for a new leader, for whom these were originally meant, then they will find themselves lacking a baseline to operate off of. These guidelines are meant to establish that baseline.

So yes, you will have situations where you, as a Chief Engineer, need to step into an unmanaged sec team and yell at that. But. I pray to god you understand that you are stepping onto territory where you lack knowledge. So arm yourself with humility, until the situation gets too far. At that point, aggression and authority -- clarity. I'd also recommend working with them for as long as you can; from what I can determine, you have a bit of a negative onset towards sec, and if you enter their world as a Chief Engineer demanding butts to be had without, what they consider to be valid reason, you'll get chewed out and spat out. Which isn't the best scenario for either case.

 

Personally I feel that it should be mandatory that acting heads be assigned to departments that lack one, rather than optional. Both as a stepping stone for players to get moved into the whitelist, and so that departments that lack a coordinator at least have one person who is responsible to organize them. If heads of staff are expected to stay within their lane at all times, barring exceptional emergencies, then you absolutely must have an overseer in all departments at all times, not just in emergencies.

 

Eh. Eh. Eh. I'm not too fussed about this. A lot of the senior departmental teams, most evident in Medical, Security and Science, are quite capable of self-control and communication. At which point, all you need do is to enable them to communicate with you. Once that's done, they should run like a well oiled machine.

If you spot conflict, then work with the command staff and the department in question to solve it. The worst, absolute worst thing you could do is roll in as a foreign entity and slap in place a leader. He won't be respected. He won't listened to. Nor will you, at that point. So work with the folks you're trying to manage, and it should work out. Everything else is dependent on the case itself.

 

Also, staff who are disrespectful to any head of staff should be subject to review/report. While I do feel insulting an officer is a crime that should be removed from the books, insulting a department head, even if they aren't your own, is a very good way to get yourself suspended or fired in any job. Especially if they take offense. Just because they aren't your boss doesn't make it okay to be rude or dismissive of them. They still outrank you.

 

Horribly nuance driven point here. Okay, yes, that charge is bullshit. But it helps prove a point and showcase a pothole you're about to step into. What happens to an officer who lashes out with a charge of "Disrespecting an Officer"? They get called petty, they ruin their image, they get put under direct scrutiny.

Consider that you are working with humans. Consider that you are Chief Engineer who has marched into security, and presumably demanded action. How you explain yourself and conduct yourself past that point determines the amount of respect you walk away with from that engagement. I will not fault an officer getting fired up if you're stepping on their tail during a live situation, and asking them to do something they would never consider proper, without taking the time to make them understand you. Because: they are under stress, they are following their teachings, and now they have this other dude appear out of the blue, telling them the direct opposite of what they're trained to do. If you lash out against that, you make a grave mistake.

For the above situation, your actions should be preventative. You should seek to establish good communication, authority and a working relationship with Security, so that they are capable of heeding your word, should a situation go live.

However. If the disrespect is genuine, then it deserves to be looked at. I have always hated, hated, hated the "Disrespecting an Officer" clause. And while I understand that there are situations where you need to remove an element, so that the whole can function again, it needs to be handled with knowledge and wisdom. You have tools, and you should not default to the quickest solution, as it is most often the one that requires the most clean-up afterwards.

 

---

---

 

Now, let me address a point that may arise real quick. I understand that what I said up top may come off as rather opposed to your views. From what I've determined, you've spent your fair time as a Chief Engineer and a leader, at that point. Which is why I am not exactly afraid to argue points raised, with the intent of offering perspective on the issues you raise. Keep in mind, there is no one solution to any issue, there shouldn't be. So above, I described my preferred toolset, one which has served me well enough on SS13.

Further more, I advise gaining perspective of your own initiative as well. Play Sec for a few rounds, and understand the mindset of the core players there. See what approaches would work best with'em, and adjust your strategy to be more effective.

Oh, and the full thread I was referencing for the list. Should cover a few other things: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=603

[Jamini]

Re: Following your lane

-Fair enough. I can see going into it as a baseline for people who have not worked in command much. That said, be mindful that some people will take them fully to heart to the point of being a detriment.

Re: Acting Heads

-If you have senior staff that run as a well-oiled machine... good! I don't necessarily agree that medical and science are well-oiled (the former has more demotion requests in a day than any other department, the latter is terminally understaffed). However, I personally do feel that Staff who are able to run in such a manner should be ICly given promotions. Communication is the key here. Command staff generally want/need an ear and voice from each department so they can coordinate more efficiently. The only really good way to get someone onto the command channel is to promote them to acting commander, so they can access the spare headset. When one has a department completely cut off from the others, it can create fairly serious inter-departmental problems.

The point isn't necessarily oversight. The point is to get someone who can communicate effectively with the rest of the station. If I have an engineer arrested over a charge and I can't find out why, because there isn't a head of security and the warden isn't talking, there is an issue.

Re: Disrespect

-I don't really disagree on this point, however I still feel the charge has no real place. If anything, duty officers should be the ones overseeing cases of disrespect. Not security.

Re: Cultivating relationships with security

-I will honestly say this right now: Cultivating any sort of relationship with security is incredibly difficult for /any/ engineering character. While yes,Khayyam does have friendships with some officers, it is a notable rivalry/dislike that makes it extremely difficult to do anything even when one is alone in command. It's also a rivalry that is about as old as SS13 is, and probably isn't going to go away any time soon.

Security as a whole genuinely act as if they are superior to other departments. I have had (long-term) officers attempt to order DNC when they had no authority to do so, and a particular warden level "Insulting an officer" charges at Khayyam when he was the sole command staff on-station and responding to multiple (false) charges of security abusing their power, while proceeding to do the very same thing to him for the remainder of the round. I've watched lone officers barge directly into completely authorized testing and attempt to arrest scientists. That sort of behavior needs to be curbed. In some cases it is fantastic roleplay. However if it is a pandemic problem then there is something that needs to be addressed. Regarding one particular incident, the only reason I did not write an incident report on the issue (outside of laziness) was because I was acting as an antagonist in the round.

[Guest]

Re: Following your lane

-Fair enough. I can see going into it as a baseline for people who have not worked in command much. That said, be mindful that some people will take them fully to heart to the point of being a detriment.

Re: Acting Heads

-If you have senior staff that run as a well-oiled machine... good! I don't necessarily agree that medical and science are well-oiled (the former has more demotion requests in a day than any other department, the latter is terminally understaffed). However, I personally do feel that Staff who are able to run in such a manner should be ICly given promotions. Communication is the key here. Command staff generally want/need an ear and voice from each department so they can coordinate more efficiently. The only really good way to get someone onto the command channel is to promote them to acting commander, so they can access the spare headset. When one has a department completely cut off from the others, it can create fairly serious inter-departmental problems.

The point isn't necessarily oversight. The point is to get someone who can communicate effectively with the rest of the station. If I have an engineer arrested over a charge and I can't find out why, because there isn't a head of security and the warden isn't talking, there is an issue.

Re: Disrespect

-I don't really disagree on this point, however I still feel the charge has no real place. If anything, duty officers should be the ones overseeing cases of disrespect. Not security.

Re: Cultivating relationships with security

-I will honestly say this right now: Cultivating any sort of relationship with security is incredibly difficult for /any/ engineering character. While yes,Khayyam does have friendships with some officers, it is a notable rivalry/dislike that makes it extremely difficult to do anything even when one is alone in command. It's also a rivalry that is about as old as SS13 is, and probably isn't going to go away any time soon.

Security as a whole genuinely act as if they are superior to other departments. I have had (long-term) officers attempt to order DNC when they had no authority to do so, and a particular warden level "Insulting an officer" charges at Khayyam when he was the sole command staff on-station and responding to multiple (false) charges of security abusing their power, while proceeding to do the very same thing to him for the remainder of the round. I've watched lone officers barge directly into completely authorized testing and attempt to arrest scientists. That sort of behavior needs to be curbed. In some cases it is fantastic roleplay. However if it is a pandemic problem then there is something that needs to be addressed. Regarding one particular incident, the only reason I did not write an incident report on the issue (outside of laziness) was because I was acting as an antagonist in the round.

 

Re: Re: Following your lane

Bias, bias, I think Captains are exempt from this. If they are to oversee what the fuck other heads are doing, they are expected to know how to command those departments, along with basics of them. I'm not saying they are a super-employee of any kind, only that they should be a suitable command replacement. If they fuck up, Captain has to step in.

Re: Re: Acting Heads

I agree with this practice and I promote it for certain departments, such as Security and Engineering in a form of Senior Engineer and Senior Officer when I feel it's needed. This is to provide access and a command relay as you've said. However, I don't like doing that for RDs and CMOs for following reasons/examples:

Medical doesn't usually need someone who will overlook it directly, but rather someone who will assist with all the roles, someone exceptionally qualified. This makes promoting an acting CMO very difficult due to the nature of every role in there needing a PhD.

Similar goes for RD, you need someone extremelly qualified, even though I usually have to suspend my disbelief that every person in science department can fill every role (which is usually the case). Furthermore, almost every fucking member of the science department thinks that the station is their personal playground. This means that things that will get you fired and should get you fired such as,

 

• blatant self-testing
  
• dangerous experiments outside of or reckless experiments inside science department
  
• stealing from high security areas
• misusing equipment for chucklefuckery

 

will not only get ignored, but will sometimes be encouraged by the RD. A lot of RDs generally do whatever the fuck they want as if the phrase 'with great power comes great responsibility' has no fucking meaning in this context at all.

I know the point of the station is to do research and that they should be allowed freedoms, but for fuck's sake, when you take a RD, you're expected to be a moral and scientific compass of the station. When I have to step in when the RD allowing something pointlessly unethical or dangerous it makes me both sad and angry at the same time.

Re: Re: Disrespect

Honestly, I've been defending this pointless rule for while. I think it needs to go. Officers shouldn't get preferential treatment when it comes to calling names, this has only caused for much abuse as generally asshole officers abuse and don't expect to be insulted back. If someone is being harassed, you make a complaint. If the harassment is reaching the point where the officer is unable to work, arrest for hooliganism. That's it, problem solved.

Chain of command needs to be respected and you don't insult your boss, this still stands. This means people like the Heads of Staff and Captains (IAAs as maybe as well on account of being NT officials) shouldn't be insulted. An officer is not your boss, you can still be an asshole to him. And no, we need to establish a notion if or not NT are police force, I'm going with conclusion that they are not.

Re: Re: Cultivating relationships with security

With that asside, I don't know what the fuck the deal is with Engineering, but as a long time security player, I can say it's one sided. Security doesn't hate engineering. I'm assuming that the hate has accumilated over the ages past over all the hacking detainments, opening airlocks and 'oppression' Security has been doing. Well, honestly, I will let you know that Security Officer is the most oppressed role on the station. They are not allowed to drink, screw around or sometimes even go for a break the entire round. Name any other role that has to follow such a strict code of conduct?

In cases when security does open a fucking airlock, itis usually to make sure that you don't get shot while you repair the damage or they are trying to save themselves. You can blame them fore being careless, but for fucks sake, don't call some stupid reasons such as department rivalry. Security is here to make sure rules are implamented. If any officer is actually ordering you around, report them, there is an applicable charge for this.

As for DNC, it's more of a fucking reminder than anything. Non-crew, suicides and killed criminals aren't to be cloned either way unless the reason for their killing is not justified. If they attempt to prevent anyone else from being cloned, then again, fucking report them.

[Jamini]

Re: Re: Acting Heads

I agree with this practice and I promote it for certain departments, such as Security and Engineering in a form of Senior Engineer and Senior Officer when I feel it's needed. This is to provide access and a command relay as you've said. However, I don't like doing that for RDs and CMOs for following reasons/examples:

Medical doesn't usually need someone who will overlook it directly, but rather someone who will assist with all the roles, someone exceptionally qualified. This makes promoting an acting CMO very difficult due to the nature of every role in there needing a PhD.

Similar goes for RD, you need someone extremelly qualified, even though I usually have to suspend my disbelief that every person in science department can fill every role (which is usually the case). Furthermore, almost every fucking member of the science department thinks that the station is their personal playground. This means that things that will get you fired and should get you fired such as,

 

I can't really agree with you there on either the RD or the CMO. Most medical characters have at least rudimentary training outside of their field (ask who knows chemistry or surgery in :m some day, you'll find about half the department stating they know the basics of chem/a few vital chemicals) If anything, it is access that restricts doctors more than ablity. Once again, medical is also the department with the most demotion requests stemming from it bar none.

As for an acting RD, you really only need someone who is responsible enough to put a halt to dangerous experiments and other illegal activity. It's not a permanent post, but rather someone to oversee the large number of scientists who act improperly.

Also, you can really chalk engineering up there with "They will do their job well, even without a head." A good CE just makes engineering work more efficiently and fills in where his staff can't. Using your method, honestly I would say that security is the only department that honestly needs to have someone in command at all times. That's, in part, why I disagree with that assessment.

 

Re: Re: Disrespect

Honestly, I've been defending this pointless rule for while. I think it needs to go. Officers shouldn't get preferential treatment when it comes to calling names, this has only caused for much abuse as generally asshole officers abuse and don't expect to be insulted back. If someone is being harassed, you make a complaint. If the harassment is reaching the point where the officer is unable to work, arrest for hooliganism. That's it, problem solved.

Chain of command needs to be respected and you don't insult your boss, this still stands. This means people like the Heads of Staff and Captains (IAAs as maybe as well on account of being NT officials) shouldn't be insulted. An officer is not your boss, you can still be an asshole to him. And no, we need to establish a notion if or not NT are police force, I'm going with conclusion that they are not.

 

What security officers should be:

How security officers act:

 

I've got nothing more to add to this.

 

Re: Re: Cultivating relationships with security

With that asside, I don't know what the fuck the deal is with Engineering, but as a long time security player, I can say it's one sided. Security doesn't hate engineering. I'm assuming that the hate has accumilated over the ages past over all the hacking detainments, opening airlocks and 'oppression' Security has been doing. Well, honestly, I will let you know that Security Officer is the most oppressed role on the station. They are not allowed to drink, screw around or sometimes even go for a break the entire round. Name any other role that has to follow such a strict code of conduct?

 

With the exception of drinking, station engineer. Even then, drinking is pretty heavily frowned upon down on the aft side of the ship.

You can't screw around if things are broken, and it's pretty damn likely that you won't get a break if anything happens. Plus officers /love/ to do the following:

Hacking detainment - Arresting engineers for doing their job. I've had officers repeatedly try and arrest engineers I have explicitly told to find the wire codes for doors or sent to fix an area. While I can't always condone

I've also seen fun things like (note, not all of these are from aurora):

1. Trying to throw engineers out of their department

2. Refusing to allow engineers to fix/start power systems (It was a crime scene, and power was failing station-wide)

3. Refusing to send officers to stop space carp from venting atmospherics.

4. Blocking off a high-traffic area

5. Confiscating electrical crates

6. Arresting engineers for fixing distribution pipes under walls

7. Trumping up arrests/vandalism charges. (20 minutes for a single engineering apprentice who was ASKED to rennovate the vacant office. She was given an illegal trespassing charge too.)

8. Once or twice I have seen officers attempt to arrest engineers for repairing the brig for them. I.E. after a greytide event.

While you may not have anything against engineering personally, quite a number of officers do act as such. It can get exceedingly excessive, especially when engineering can be just as high-stress or even moreso than security.

 

As for DNC, it's more of a fucking reminder than anything. Non-crew, suicides and killed criminals aren't to be cloned either way unless the reason for their killing is not justified. If they attempt to prevent anyone else from being cloned, then again, fucking report them.

 

It wasn't a reminder. The officer immediately backed off when I reminded them that they don't have the authority to call a DNC on a crew-member.

Killed criminals is a slippery slope. If anything, I'd personally say that CC/Odin would want intruders and traitors cloned So they can be interrogated. As for suicides, that's blatantly stupid with cloning technology. Assuming the player isn't banned for it, medical should have their psychiatrist do their job after said suicidee is revived. DNC on suicide is just asinine, quite honestly, as if they did so without a valid IC reason they will almost certainly be banned or spoken too.

[Guest]

The only issue I've ever had with engineers are the few select ones that feel as though they know Corp Reg better than the ideal security officer does.

And, really. If you have an issue with someone's playstyle, I say take it up with the adminhelp function or here on the forums. But, as you said apparently, not all of the issues you have experienced stem from Aurora.

You can't fix anything if you're not helping anyone identify the problem.

[TishinaStalker]

I've also seen fun things like (note, not all of these are from aurora):

 

If they didn't happen on Aurora, then how are they relevant to the discussion of security personnel on the server? Which of these exactly are the ones that didn't happen on Aurora as well? You fail to mark which ones are those, and as such it makes it sound like "OUR SECURITY DOES THIS AND THIS AND THIS" rather than "Our Security does this, but I've also seen things like this happen in other servers". Know what I mean?

 

1. Trying to throw engineers out of their department

3. Refusing to send officers to stop space carp from venting atmospherics.

5. Confiscating electrical crates

 

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that any of the regular Security players would do things like these without orders from a Head of Security or Captain (in the case of lacking an HoS). If anything, this sounds more akin to non-regular Security players, and the department as a whole should not be judged over things like that Also, for sake of clarity, when you say "Trying to throw engineers out of their department" who is "their"? As in throw them out of Security or Engineering?

 

4. Blocking off a high-traffic area

 

I've only ever seen this happen if there's something like a crime scene in the middle of a hall. In which case, you can't really complain about that? If I'm wrong about the situation, then I refer you to my above statement.

 

6. Arresting engineers for fixing distribution pipes under walls

 

Thiiiiis depends on where the pipe was, and how well you communicated. Engineer breaks a wall in the bridge to change a pipe, but didn't tell anyone? Yeah, I can definitely see you getting arrested. What exactly was the situation here that you witnessed? I'm genuinely curious about that.

 

7. Trumping up arrests/vandalism charges. (20 minutes for a single engineering apprentice who was ASKED to rennovate the vacant office. She was given an illegal trespassing charge too.)

 

This I can see happening if the officer has a vendetta against the character or it's a game mode like RP Revolution. In which case it's sort of an IC issue. It's also fairly common with people who are first timers to Security, in which case I refer you to my first statement.

 

2. Refusing to allow engineers to fix/start power systems (It was a crime scene, and power was failing station-wide)

 

I mean... This seems sort of understandable? Forensic investigations don't normally take too long unless the forensic technician and/or detective is/are new. Not to mention that there's solar panels that can be wired to treat the issue while the investigation is carried out. I assure you that with enough planning and rationing, this situation could've been resolved while security carried out an investigation. All in all, I do not see a negative issue with this.

 

8. Once or twice I have seen officers attempt to arrest engineers for repairing the brig for them. I.E. after a greytide event.

 

Yeah, no. I apologize, but this really seems like grasping at straws in order to be able to say something. No regular player is going to go "Oh, that person is fixing our department. Lets stop them." Unless they're an antagonist or they're new.

 

DNC on suicide is just asinine, quite honestly, as if they did so without a valid IC reason they will almost certainly be banned or spoken too.

 

Iiiiii personally think this is as much of a slippery slope as cloning criminals. Like, lets not look at invalid suicide because we definitely permit suicide with sufficient IC reason; you just have to request permission and state your case to staff. What's the point of cloning personnel with deep-rooted psychological issues that led them to commit suicide? You need to keep in mind that clones also have to go through psychological therapy post-cloning for months until they come to terms with the fact that they are a clone, and the doctor reveals what really happened and/or finally states "You're a clone, Harry." It's like... You're cloning somebody with suicidal tendencies, and when you do finally reveal that they committed suicide, then things will really go down hill because that's just going to rip open more wounds because of how they died rather than the fact of "I'm a clone". Get what I'm saying?

[Jamini]

If they didn't happen on Aurora, then how are they relevant to the discussion of security personnel on the server? Which of these exactly are the ones that didn't happen on Aurora as well? You fail to mark which ones are those, and as such it makes it sound like "OUR SECURITY DOES THIS AND THIS AND THIS" rather than "Our Security does this, but I've also seen things like this happen in other servers". Know what I mean?

 

When taking into account a department, especially security (as it does have very high turnover and non-regulars, even if the regulars are very good), you need to take into account the entire department. Cherry picking examples from the department doesn't change how a department is viewed.

Taking into account other servers offers perspective. To make an informed decision on a change or policy, you need to have perspective on the whole manner. That sometimes involves including events that are from other places.

An incident with someone trying to get an engineer arrested for testing door wires happened just yesterday to Abdul Nagi. It was the AI, not an officer, trying for the arrest. Nevertheless it was irritating to deal with as I had explicitly asked him to write down the wires and he was hacking the engineering lobby door at the time.

 

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that any of the regular Security players would do things like these without orders from a Head of Security or Captain (in the case of lacking an HoS). If anything, this sounds more akin to non-regular Security players, and the department as a whole should not be judged over things like that Also, for sake of clarity, when you say "Trying to throw engineers out of their department" who is "their"? As in throw them out of Security or Engineering?

 

Throwing Engineers out of Engineering. It has not happened here to me personally yet, but I have seen it elsewhere and I've not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that it could not or would not happen here. I've seen both Ana and Milo do so on bay12 once or twice, and I do not for a moment hesitate to consider that they or others would do so again here. Again, I'm taking a more generic view on security than just aurora. Security is again, the department with the highest employee turnover of any except maybe civilian roles. You can't ignore new players to the department just because they are new. They need to be factored in as well as veterans.

 

[i've only ever seen this happen if there's something like a crime scene in the middle of a hall. In which case, you can't really complain about that? If I'm wrong about the situation, then I refer you to my above statement.

 

Yeah, pretty much. That said, if no effort is made to have some way for people to pass it can be a concern. Especially if it's a major choke-point (such as by medical, or the escape hallway.)

 

Thiiiiis depends on where the pipe was, and how well you communicated. Engineer breaks a wall in the bridge to change a pipe, but didn't tell anyone? Yeah, I can definitely see you getting arrested. What exactly was the situation here that you witnessed? I'm genuinely curious about that.

 

I've seen it happen a few times, elsewhere mostly. Normally the biggest places it occurs are the areas with pipes under windows fore of maintenance (which are a bastard to fix properly.) and some of the main distro pipes under robotics.

 

7. Trumping up arrests/vandalism charges. (20 minutes for a single engineering apprentice who was ASKED to rennovate the vacant office. She was given an illegal trespassing charge too.)

 

This I can see happening if the officer has a vendetta against the character or it's a game mode like RP Revolution. In which case it's sort of an IC issue. It's also fairly common with people who are first timers to Security, in which case I refer you to my first statement.

 

M'sid, as head of security, did this after Sairis (as CE) had requested the apprentice be arrested for vandalism/not following procedure. Most of engineering (including Sairis) were shocked and outraged when they discovered the length of the timer. It was not rev or mutiny at the time, but extended.

 

2. Refusing to allow engineers to fix/start power systems (It was a crime scene, and power was failing station-wide)

 

I mean... This seems sort of understandable? Forensic investigations don't normally take too long unless the forensic technician and/or detective is/are new. Not to mention that there's solar panels that can be wired to treat the issue while the investigation is carried out. I assure you that with enough planning and rationing, this situation could've been resolved while security carried out an investigation. All in all, I do not see a negative issue with this.

 

It's really not understandable or acceptable from the engineering side at all. Yes, forensic investigation don't take too long if you have a competent CSI, but you can't always assume competency. Likewise, wiring solars can be exceedingly dangerous or impossible depending on the circumstances (drone or carp events, for example). Generally you want the engine up and running as quickly as possible. If the engine room was SABOTAGED or DAMAGED then it also drifts into the realm of station safety.

 

8. Once or twice I have seen officers attempt to arrest engineers for repairing the brig for them. I.E. after a greytide event.

 

Yeah, no. I apologize, but this really seems like grasping at straws in order to be able to say something. No regular player is going to go "Oh, that person is fixing our department. Lets stop them." Unless they're an antagonist or they're new.

 

Fair enough. Though I will point out new players are still officers, just as experienced ones are. You can't judge a department solely based on its experienced staff. You need to take all of them into account.

 

DNC on suicide is just asinine, quite honestly, as if they did so without a valid IC reason they will almost certainly be banned or spoken too.

 

Iiiiii personally think this is as much of a slippery slope as cloning criminals. Like, lets not look at invalid suicide because we definitely permit suicide with sufficient IC reason; you just have to request permission and state your case to staff. What's the point of cloning personnel with deep-rooted psychological issues that led them to commit suicide? You need to keep in mind that clones also have to go through psychological therapy post-cloning for months until they come to terms with the fact that they are a clone, and the doctor reveals what really happened and/or finally states "You're a clone, Harry." It's like... You're cloning somebody with suicidal tendencies, and when you do finally reveal that they committed suicide, then things will really go down hill because that's just going to rip open more wounds because of how they died rather than the fact of "I'm a clone". Get what I'm saying?

 

1. You aren't supposed to tell people they are cloned anyway, due to CMD. If you do, it's a failure on the part of the doctor (or a failure of the player to properly roleplay CMD)

2. Part of the role of the psychiatrist is to help treat those mental disorders and heal those mental wounds. If cloning tech is readily available to the point where even a janitor can have it as part of his health care plan while on-duty, why are we refusing that treatment on the sole basis of "they were suicidal". Your argument strikes me strongly of "Refusing to help someone with a mental issue simply because they acted upon it." If we help potential suicides, why aren't we helping those that did act on it when we have the ability to revive the dead?

3. This doesn't take into account suicides by proxy, spur of the moment decisions, or faked suicides. I've had characters who have suicided that were genuinely shocked/horrified about it post-cloning. Was it well-reasoned? Yes. Was said character glad to be revived? Eventually they were, yes. Had they not been brought back, they would probably be very different than they are today.

4. Plus they never need to know they are a clone if the operation is handled well.

5. A player who genuinely does not want a character to be revived can simply refuse to re-enter their body. MIF is the best way to ensure you stay dead, if you want to stay dead.

[VoltageHero]

What security officers should be:

How security officers act:

 

I've got nothing more to add to this.

 

 

This is pretty silly. I'm unsure if there is more context to this, but judging from the rest of the comments, it seems pretty biased.

This looks like a "how dare security actually do their jobs, they are oppressive characters", while this literally isn't the case.

You're also assuming people should change a character to better suit your ideals. You don't see people doing this to, do you?

[Skull132]

Perspective is nice, as I've said.

Letting preconceptions and past experiences dictate action baselessly, on the other hand, will lead to issues.

There's a very clear difference between the two. I apologize if it seems like we're harping, but I do not like forced generalization to forward personal opinion. Yes, security on other servers may very well have done whatever you say they have. However, every server has its own MO, feel and core playerbase. Even if the topic is the same, Heavy Roleplay, there are an n+1 ways of approaching the issue. Example: there are some HRP servers which would never add antagonists like we have them, and yet, we still make a claim for the same title as them. Ergo, approaches to issues, such as security, will be vastly different from server to server, HRP server to HRP server.

If you enter with the expectation of security here conducting themselves here, as they do in servers from your past, then you will take an approach to match that preconception/expectation. In some situations, this isn't a problem. In some cases, this can actually mean positive things. But there also cases where this can lead to unnecessary hostility and an overly aggressive approach to a given situation. At that point, you will create issues. And you may very well create issues that you are describing, and will be able to bring them out as fresh examples, without realizing that your preconceptions are one of the root causes (obviously, one CE does not have the power to cause such a shift, but regardless, the idea is there).

[TishinaStalker]

If they didn't happen on Aurora, then how are they relevant to the discussion of security personnel on the server? Which of these exactly are the ones that didn't happen on Aurora as well? You fail to mark which ones are those, and as such it makes it sound like "OUR SECURITY DOES THIS AND THIS AND THIS" rather than "Our Security does this, but I've also seen things like this happen in other servers". Know what I mean?

 

When taking into account a department, especially security (as it does have very high turnover and non-regulars, even if the regulars are very good), you need to take into account the entire department. Cherry picking examples from the department doesn't change how a department is viewed.

Taking into account other servers offers perspective. To make an informed decision on a change or policy, you need to have perspective on the whole manner. That sometimes involves including events that are from other places.

An incident with someone trying to get an engineer arrested for testing door wires happened just yesterday to Abdul Nagi. It was the AI, not an officer, trying for the arrest. Nevertheless it was irritating to deal with as I had explicitly asked him to write down the wires and he was hacking the engineering lobby door at the time.

 

And which of those situations on that list happened on Aurora? You sorta swerved past that question. Like... You said for some. I want to know all of them, get me?

 

Again, I'm taking a more generic view on security than just aurora. Security is again, the department with the highest employee turnover of any except maybe civilian roles. You can't ignore new players to the department just because they are new. They need to be factored in as well as veterans.

 

A more generic view. Alright. Server-specific discussion is why we're here I believe?

 

Yeah, pretty much. That said, if no effort is made to have some way for people to pass it can be a concern. Especially if it's a major choke-point (such as by medical, or the escape hallway.)

 

Thaaaat would fall on Engineering. They're the ones that can keep maintenance doors open to the public in order to get around crime scenes that are blocking off a primary hall. Work together. Communicate. Take your PDA or headset and go "ayyy, Sec, I'mma bolt open some o' dese here maintenance airlocks so that peeps can keep on movin' past yer there crime scene, an' keep the station efficient", and now you have co-departmental relations. Everybody wins. Sec isn't going to go "NO, DON'T YOU DARE MAKE THIS STATION EFFICIENT" because Security personnel (contrary to what you seem to believe) possess higher thinking.

 

I've seen it happen a few times, elsewhere mostly. Normally the biggest places it occurs are the areas with pipes under windows fore of maintenance (which are a bastard to fix properly.) and some of the main distro pipes under robotics.

 

I assume this is something that's happened in another server because I have never witnessed this on Aurora, and neither have regular Security members that I've questioned. Noted.

 

M'sid, as head of security, did this after Sairis (as CE) had requested the apprentice be arrested for vandalism/not following procedure. Most of engineering (including Sairis) were shocked and outraged when they discovered the length of the timer. It was not rev or mutiny at the time, but extended.

 

Did you ever find out all of the information as to why the timer was increased? It's possible that other things happened such as sparking a manhunt, resisting arrest, etc. Just throwing out possibilities because I haven't seen yet a head of security that arbitrarily throws in charges 4no. raisins. Now, in the case that I'm wrong, I could talk to the player. That would be a head of staff issue because security officers need to follow orders if they want to keep their jobs (which everybody should be worried about IC'ly).

 

It's really not understandable or acceptable from the engineering side at all. Yes, forensic investigation don't take too long if you have a competent CSI, but you can't always assume competency. Likewise, wiring solars can be exceedingly dangerous or impossible depending on the circumstances (drone or carp events, for example). Generally you want the engine up and running as quickly as possible. If the engine room was SABOTAGED or DAMAGED then it also drifts into the realm of station safety.

 

So you're telling me that you would rather immediately set the engine and contaminate the scene instead of waiting for Security to finish their investigation, and find out who dun it? Right, that's ONE way to do it, but it will make it even more difficult for Security to find out who dun it, and they'll be free to sabotage more things. Try looking at things from Security's perspective as well. Wiring solars has potential danger? Get a sec escort. This brings me back to my point above about co-departmental relations.

 

Fair enough. Though I will point out new players are still officers, just as experienced ones are. You can't judge a department solely based on its experienced staff. You need to take all of them into account.

 

Nnnnnno, see. For this part you DEFINITELY can't judge the department based on its new staff. Why? Because this example you gave is something that you would expect from a 30 year old, bald officer. If you want to judge a whole department over that, then I will start to judge all of engineering after all of the engineering apprentices I have seen detonate welder bombs in medbay, and all the atmospherics technicians that have attempted plasma grief. That doesn't sound fair, right? Right. Context matters when judging.

 

1. You aren't supposed to tell people they are cloned anyway, due to CMD. If you do, it's a failure on the part of the doctor (or a failure of the player to properly roleplay CMD)

 

Leeeeet me stop you right there real quick. When I said that, I was referring to the bottom of the following page because it's important for your first, second, and fourth points. http://wiki.baystation12.net/index.php?title=Clone_Memory_Disorder#Post_Process Along with that, I suggest reading it because that part of the page is why I'm saying that suicide cloning would be weird. Until the round restarts, you can't just assume "Oh, that person's not gonna be a clone anymore", and need to keep thinking that, that is what the clone is going to be going through after the shift.

 

3. This doesn't take into account suicides by proxy, spur of the moment decisions, or faked suicides. I've had characters who have suicided that were genuinely shocked/horrified about it post-cloning. Was it well-reasoned? Yes. Was said character glad to be revived? Eventually they were, yes. Had they not been brought back, they would probably be very different than they are today.

 

That's just, like, YOUR character. Your character is not anybody else's character, dude...

[CoolfoolFTW]

An incident with someone trying to get an engineer arrested for testing door wires happened just yesterday to Abdul Nagi. It was the AI, not an officer, trying for the arrest. Nevertheless it was irritating to deal with as I had explicitly asked him to write down the wires and he was hacking the engineering lobby door at the time.

The officer was a new guy and I had to explain to him how my ID didn't have a icon on the sec hud because of the title, as far as I remember he didn't try to arrest me.

[Erik Tiber]

Really, it makes perfect sense that the person learns they are a clone. I made an entire thread about that actually.

To me, though, it doesn't make much sense why you wouldn't clone a suicide. Put them in a straight jacket if you have to, but well, if you don't clone them, then they're just going to stay dead. If you clone them and they try to commit suicide again, the worst that could happen is that they die again.

I'm not personally sure how I should feel about how DNC's should be used. After all, it is effectively a death sentence if you want to prevent someone from getting cloned, period. Inaction is a choice after all, and your inaction prevents their cloning, and thus them being alive again. Which is viewed as very important. I mean, given the circumstances, actively ordering that a body not be cloned is basically ordering them to die, unless you will prep the body for transport and clone them elsewhere, but even then it would, logically, be better for the clone if you conducted that operation earlier and just locked them up in a straightjacket until transfer.

Obvioiusly that's rather unpleasant, but given that the alternative is death, the bar is set rather low.

If I'm missing something here, please point it out.

[Guest]

Really, it makes perfect sense that the person learns they are a clone. I made an entire thread about that actually.

To me, though, it doesn't make much sense why you wouldn't clone a suicide. Put them in a straight jacket if you have to, but well, if you don't clone them, then they're just going to stay dead. If you clone them and they try to commit suicide again, the worst that could happen is that they die again.

I'm not personally sure how I should feel about how DNC's should be used. After all, it is effectively a death sentence if you want to prevent someone from getting cloned, period. Inaction is a choice after all, and your inaction prevents their cloning, and thus them being alive again. Which is viewed as very important. I mean, given the circumstances, actively ordering that a body not be cloned is basically ordering them to die, unless you will prep the body for transport and clone them elsewhere, but even then it would, logically, be better for the clone if you conducted that operation earlier and just locked them up in a straightjacket until transfer.

Obvioiusly that's rather unpleasant, but given that the alternative is death, the bar is set rather low.

If I'm missing something here, please point it out.

 

Well, for starters, a reason cloning is done must be established first. I'll put my reasoning ahead for consideration.

Let's say that every individual in employment of Nanotrasen has medical insurance. If cloning is an established and accepted medical practice covered by it, it means that every employee has cloning covered as their contract right.

The moment someone is convicted of murder and put into perma, their employment is nulled and their insurance void. This means if they commit suicide after being convicted, NT is no way obligated to waste funds on their cloning. Regardless of how crew act, NT is a heartless corporation so captains and heads of staff are expected to put it's interest before their own morals.

Likewise, psychological care is covered by the insurance. This means that if person is mentally ill at the point where simple therapy and pills can help their condition, cloning should be done, because the person is salvageable. People who without any valid IC reason at all start hitting themselves to death are considered crazy beyond fixing and are too unstable to keep in employment. Furthermore, attempting therapy with such people after being cloned will only make things worse, as they won't be able to understand what they did wrong and why they're being kept in a mental institution. OOCly, not cloning is an IC punishment for being a dickwad.

In the event that cloning is not done and the person is fired post-mortem, they are left to government's care, it's up to them if or not they should be cloned, as NT is no longer obligated to provide medical care.

[Guest]

So, yesterday during a rather uneventful and sparse secret-changeling round, I was the HoS that had led security to detain and imprison 5 non-antag chucklefucks screaming about Marxism and muh freedomz.

During the events in which, very clearly, the imprisoned chucklefucks were screaming and hollering despite being under absolute control and completely restrained, the security officers outside of my line of sight took it upon themselves to pepperspray restrained, detained and controlled criminals that were to be taken aboard the transfer shuttle to be judged by CC.

While I do feel it was my fault for not setting standards for what the officers should be doing, and communicating that prisoners were not to be harmed, I had already assumed that the officers were competent and collected individuals that knew what they were doing.

Given it was the end of round and the one officer I could trust, and the one Warden that was already busy juggling 4 cuffed dipshits and 41 stacks of bloody ambrosia, we couldn't start purging belligerent personalities in the department like I had already in the beginning of the round with one problematic officer that decided they should unleash their anger and excessively use force to detain two other assault suspects from earlier.

First off, I want to know. Was it a failure of the commanding department staff (me) to lead and communicate that police brutality is actually wrong and shouldn't ever be condoned, or was it an awful display of judgement of the officers themselves? Was the line leader failing, or was everyone else not falling in line?

[Guest]

First off, I want to know. Was it a failure of the commanding department staff (me) to lead and communicate that police brutality is actually wrong and shouldn't ever be condoned, or was it an awful display of judgement of the officers themselves? Was the line leader failing, or was everyone else not falling in line?

 

Sometimes you forget what you're dealing with. One time, you'll have fully competant officers, other you'll have a bunch of chucklefucks. It's all on the luck. In case of latter, it can only be fixed by unleashing terror on the officers, because, as you said, one chucklefuck was already demoted at the shift start. If they didn't get the message then it's not your fault, because it was pretty clear.

Honestly, if it happens again, just write names and put it in a complaint on the forum, leave it to DO's to cross reference the bad elements across the shifts and eliminate them. You have to keep them in check, correct, but some of them are just downright bad and no amount of warnings will help in the long run.

Alternatively, do the extreme thing and punish security when they start fucking up, a scary briefing room meeting will do as well.