Expansion of Review Requests/IC Punishment System

[Robotic Potato]

To start, TLDR at the bottom and the ideal process of events in the spoiler above it.

For a long time there's been a horrible IC stigma of the Aurora being the absolute worst assignment you can get because, 'all the rejects and bad employees go there'; why is this? There's no real system in place to give actual consequences to the actions what people do. You can be the worst employee every single round and do things that would get a normal person fired and why? Well, right now there's only two real routes for any sort of punishment that isn't contained to a single round one is an IR: this is usually for highly serious matters that require an in-depth investigation and two: Review Request, which entirely rely on records and a documented history of behavior.

To my point, characters consistently do things that should honestly net them serious punishments that also aren't important enough for IRs or aren't documented to allow a review request. I'd like to propose a system where Heads of Staff, people we've whitelisted to play the part of the boss, are actually granted authority outside of just telling you what to do in the moment. Do you see two Engineers always playing catch right beside the Tesla? Are your employees constantly fighting or posting inappropriate things on our now canon work relay? Well, you fill out this dandy form.

From here instead of CCIA having to launch a big investigation we would ideally trust the word of our whitelisted players(at least enough to trust they're not entirely making the interaction up), CCIA would then review the evidence if available or at least the description of events and deem it valid/invalid or if there was an antag interaction that would invalidate it then CCIA finds some sort of fitting punishment. The player is informed of this punishment, an actual consequence for something that might otherwise be ignored, and can contest it and elevate the matter to an IR if necessary. If this system is abused somehow it could lead to IC or OOC punishments as in your Head character being demoted/fired/reprimanded or a loss of whitelist.

In effect this would make Heads of Staff not end up effectively acting like that supervisor who says you really should do something but can't really do anything about it, stopping you from working for a round, or threatening a real punishment they can really do nothing about aside from file an IR just like anyone else. Right now your boss has effectively no bearing on any actual punishment that could effect your character/career and people act like it. Hopefully, this would encourage people to act a least a little professionally or not counter-intuitive to keep a job because there's actually a threat there could be consequences for their actions.

This wouldn't particularly limit or hinder roleplay to any degree: if you wanna goof off be sure your boss doesn't see it, if you wanna defy your boss don't get caught, maybe a different Head is tolerate of it and you get away with it then, if you're caught maybe you weasel your way out of punishment, or you know just do what you're being told even if you don't want/disagree. Heads of Staff should be encouraged to handle things in-round but there are also times when something simple won't do and at the same time an IR is too much. In the spoiler I'll just give my ideal view of how this process might go:

Spoiler

CE X witnesses Engineer Y throwing a ball around in Tesla Containment or maybe another Engineer reports it to CE X.
CE X: "Hey quit doing that Engineer Y, it's dangerous."
Engineer Y: Doesn't stop and is arrested and fined(Which right now is still pretty much contained to that round unless it's extended and it sticks to your record.)
Engineering Y continues to do unsafe things.
CE X: "This is my last warning Engineer Y, if you don't straighten up you can expect more than a fine or time in the Brig."
Engineer Y continues doing things they reasonably shouldn't.
CE X files a report that looks something like this(just an example I'd leave the actual form up to CCIA):

Name: CE X
Position: Chief Engineering

Offending Employee: Engineer Y
Offending Employee(s)' Position: Engineer

Description of Events: Engineer Y has disregarded me on a number of occasions and has undertake multiple dangerous workplace actions such as playing in a hazardous areas like Tesla Containment this is a danger to themselves, others, and the equipment.
Actions Previously Taken: In the past I've escalated the matter to security and issued multiple verbal warnings.
Evidence: I've personally witnessed them performing the action and the security footage may be reviewed if deemed necessary.
Suggested Actions: I believe Engineer Y should have the incident permanently noted on their record as well as an mandatory attendance in a one week safety course unpaid. This will hopefully allow them to appreciate the danger of playing at work in the future.

CCIA evaluates the report, sees if any sources like antags or an irregular round could said to be the cause instead of the character, deems if they should escalate it to a full investigation(IR), makes a decision if punishment given in-round is enough(example a fine from that round sticks on their sec record), if deemed valid this is noted on their record(Web Interface etc), and the player is PMed and informed of the punishment and how it will effect their character.

The player/character can then contest and escalate the matter to an IR or player complaint if it's inappropriate from either an IC or OOC perspective then so on.

TLDR; This gives Heads an effect your character and job outside of just the round without having to go through an IR which would ideally be reserved for major issues. This encourages people to take Heads seriously, not act childishly while they're at what is suppose to be consider a high-end research station, but still allows you to act however you want though there may be consequences. This system still relies on CCIA to evaluate a much more basic report for smaller incidents so Heads aren't just making up shit and abusing the system. If it's abused the whitelisted player or their character is punished based on said abuse and context. The person(s) who the report is targeted at can also contest the punishment, make a player report for abuse, or otherwise escalate the situation to an IR.

[Faye <3]

i am not entirely opposed to the idea - i think it could be cool to give heads a bit more 'oomph', but i would not want to see it extend to things like the relay. it should stay purely in-game.

[Robotic Potato]

3 minutes ago, Faye &lt;3 said:

i am not entirely opposed to the idea - i think it could be cool to give heads a bit more 'oomph', but i would not want to see it extend to things like the relay. it should stay purely in-game.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to see it on the relay particularly; we wanted the relay to be official so it only makes sense we treat it as apart of the setting just as much as the server. If you're worried about saying something that could get you in trouble on the SCC relay there's the non-SCC channels, personal messages, non-affiliated channels, of course there's the relay channels which are in-character places and not text channels.

You could say this could actually also encourage the use of more channels like how the tau ceti chat is dead which I should note is a channel you don't need to use a real name in. If you want a parallel plenty of people get in trouble for things they say on social media today with their work so when you're on some public visible thing if your character cares about not getting in trouble they could just moderate what they say and let loose anywhere else?

If you're worried about Heads making these about petty things I imagine CCIA could use their best judgment in seeing your character saying once, "I dunno if I like my job," isn't something to punish you over and would likely backfire.

[ImmortalRedshirt]

It could also be because trying to verify things on the relay is a nightmare due to the way the bot works, and just puts more of a burden on the people who have to do the reviewing.

[Faye <3]

if a system like this was instated i wouldn't want to see it on the relay because that'd be boring as fuck and a huge funkiller. the relay is kind of a shitshow, and that's the fun in it imo. people are going to talk shit and fling insults and mess around, and that's just how it is i think. part of the humor. it's a work chat. there's bubble. why is central affairs monitoring the nanotrasen equivalent of discord? if you make threats or commit a crime, your character can already be punished.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Faye <3

[Robotic Potato]

1 hour ago, Faye &lt;3 said:

if a system like this was instated i wouldn't want to see it on the relay because that'd be boring as fuck and a huge funkiller. the relay is kind of a shitshow, and that's the fun in it imo. people are going to talk shit and fling insults and mess around, and that's just how it is i think. part of the humor. it's a work chat. there's bubble. why is central affairs monitoring the nanotrasen equivalent of discord? if you make threats or commit a crime, your character can already be punished.

I'll basically be repeating myself but I don't get how it kills any fun or is boring? The relay is a shitshow, well that's fine, you can still say whatever you want. You probably shouldn't but if you talk about how "If you saw a catbeast on station you'd stomp them down." or something there is a chance someone might see that and get onto you about it. The "NanoTrasen equivalent of Discord" is an official SCC-relay only employees and affiliated merchants can use where you're required to use the full name on your ID, CCIA probably isn't prowling for wrong think but if some Head says "Hey one of my employees was telling one of our vaurca they're a worthless bug they'd crush." they might look into it.

If you still want full freedom if the full thing was added you can just go to one of the other relay channels and xX-N0TFaye-xX can tell xX-TotallyNotRoboticPotato-// the reasons why NT should burn to the ground and link a manifesto. The relay is meant to be apart of our universe now, it's not disconnected anymore so what you say on it has bearing on your character and such. Basically if this were to apply to the relay it would just require anyone who wants to say something possible controversial or constantly get into fights to use common sense to either not say it, say it behind a username in another channel, or maybe your character is hot tempered and just goes off and gets in trouble/doesn't.

[geeves]

not being allowed to say dumb shit on the relay would probably kill it, i've been against CCIA moderating it for pretty much ever, and will be forever. extreme cases like death threats already have punishment from the IC Bubble source, but nothing has been outstanding enough to be passed onto the CCIA.

[KingOfThePing]

Keeping it real with you, Chief, I ain't going to sift through some discord chat messages since the fundamental works of discord, allowing to edit messages afterwards (despite the edited tag) make things impossible 

Edited October 21, 2021 by KingOfThePing

[Lucaken]

I echo what Faye said, and that while I think this could be good on-station, it probably wouldn't go over well on the relay. People should absolutely behave as an employee on station and make it realistic when they're not. But policing the relay is just out of bounds for both CCIA and Head of Staff users. Moreover, I think you will find the relay a lot more boring if we have several players watching over the chat like hawks. And to be clear, this is not about evading consequences - I think you will find many players are very receptive to conflict when it's not in the form of Command sniping them for a wacky comment in the IC equivalent of general-chat.

As for a more personal point - I really do hope you can take it at face value when I say that this suggestion seems particularly geared towards providing you and your characters extra power over others. Not only are you a Head of Staff whitelistee yourself, but the characters you play (like Stella Palmero) also seem to be very 'no-nonsense' types, and generally try to hold others accountable for their actions when they can. I think it's good to have characters like that, I've even had very successful times RPing with similar cases, and prior to this suggestion I thought that attitude was all IC. Yet, I struggle to believe that all too many people, save you, would get much RP or use out of this. I say all of this partially because when I have previously attempted to reach out and clear up any OOC bad blood over conflinct (or set up RP to play out it's consequences!) I have been met with complete silence. I don't know if you're just apathetic or didn't see it, but either way, I hope you can see why I am skeptical.

And to reiterate, because I was having a hard time phrasing the above point more gently, I still hold nothing against you. All I have said is not meant to be taken as a personal attack, but as something that has irked me for a couple of days now, and which I see as relevant to this suggestion.

[Carver]

20 hours ago, Robotic Potato said:

To my point, characters consistently do things that should honestly net them serious punishments that also aren't important enough for IRs or aren't documented to allow a review request. I'd like to propose a system where Heads of Staff, people we've whitelisted to play the part of the boss, are actually granted authority outside of just telling you what to do in the moment. Do you see two Engineers always playing catch right beside the Tesla? Are your employees constantly fighting or posting inappropriate things on our now canon work relay? Well, you fill out this dandy form.

What is this, twitter? I'd well enough hope that many years in the future, people aren't fired for what they post on their personal social media.

20 hours ago, Robotic Potato said:

In effect this would make Heads of Staff not end up effectively acting like that supervisor who says you really should do something but can't really do anything about it, stopping you from working for a round, or threatening a real punishment they can really do nothing about aside from file an IR just like anyone else. Right now your boss has effectively no bearing on any actual punishment that could effect your character/career and people act like it. Hopefully, this would encourage people to act a least a little professionally or not counter-intuitive to keep a job because there's actually a threat there could be consequences for their actions.

That is what they are intended to do if there is a genuine, and especially a repeating problem. File an IR, and CCIA will handle it.

I do not trust Command to play the role of CCIA-lite. Unless every applicant had to re-apply under a stricter form, I never will.

[Robotic Potato]

4 hours ago, Lucaken said:

I echo what Faye said, and that while I think this could be good on-station, it probably wouldn't go over well on the relay. People should absolutely behave as an employee on station and make it realistic when they're not. But policing the relay is just out of bounds for both CCIA and Head of Staff users. Moreover, I think you will find the relay a lot more boring if we have several players watching over the chat like hawks. And to be clear, this is not about evading consequences - I think you will find many players are very receptive to conflict when it's not in the form of Command sniping them for a wacky comment in the IC equivalent of general-chat.

As for a more personal point - I really do hope you can take it at face value when I say that this suggestion seems particularly geared towards providing you and your characters extra power over others. Not only are you a Head of Staff whitelistee yourself, but the characters you play (like Stella Palmero) also seem to be very 'no-nonsense' types, and generally try to hold others accountable for their actions when they can. I think it's good to have characters like that, I've even had very successful times RPing with similar cases, and prior to this suggestion I thought that attitude was all IC. Yet, I struggle to believe that all too many people, save you, would get much RP or use out of this. I say all of this partially because when I have previously attempted to reach out and clear up any OOC bad blood over conflinct (or set up RP to play out it's consequences!) I have been met with complete silence. I don't know if you're just apathetic or didn't see it, but either way, I hope you can see why I am skeptical.

And to reiterate, because I was having a hard time phrasing the above point more gently, I still hold nothing against you. All I have said is not meant to be taken as a personal attack, but as something that has irked me for a couple of days now, and which I see as relevant to this suggestion.

Personally, if we had no relay impact I think it would be a bit detrimental but I wouldn't cry if it didn't come as it was just a suggestion as the relay always seemed like completely disconnected from the reality of our setting at times. I understand your concern, yes, I often try to play more professional characters with my suit being the obvious standout. That being said there are other people, and I hope this could encourage more people to be interested in making characters who are more authoritative(I'm not saying dictatorial); my hopes for this system is that everything would mostly be flavor like I said "one week unpaid safety course" might not mean you can't play for a week but you complain how you're getting less hours/paid less for some dumb course.

I should also note I'm a big proponent of handling things in round and try to avoid things like IR, etc and I'm hoping when your Boss is able to actual promise you some real consequences for your actions, that being said hopefully the person in question has a recourse like I said raising it to an IR to sort it out if they think they've been wrong. It's simply by nature of us being a roleplaying game MOST people want to play the fun boss so they can make more friends so the function might not get much use though I suppose I also would hope people understand you can be a good boss and strict at the same time and this could encourage people to simply be more considerate of their character's actions.

Also just a quick note, I don't mean this in a rude way but I am somewhat apathetic the issue. It was an IC conflict based on OOC confusion; you got it cleared up so I didn't think there was any need to say anymore about it I've got no issue separating IC an OOC so I'm not upset or anything.

My biggest worry when it comes to this system is not that it would be rarely used to punish someone, in fact I would be more pleased it's rarely used but it a tool which Heads can use to simply not seem flaccid. I'm more worried about this system being used too much and it becomes the main tool, in my ideal world a Head tries to solve something in round with stern talkings, minor punishments, and then would elevate to this without jumping to an IR. It is my hope those that our whitelisted players would have the restraint to use this sparingly and if they couldn't their whitelist could be evaluated or their character punished.

[Robotic Potato]

16 minutes ago, Carver said:

What is this, twitter? I'd well enough hope that many years in the future, people aren't fired for what they post on their personal social media.

That is what they are intended to do if there is a genuine, and especially a repeating problem. File an IR, and CCIA will handle it.

I do not trust Command to play the role of CCIA-lite. Unless every applicant had to re-apply under a stricter form, I never will.

My thought is they're management and should have some level of managerial like punishment not related just to that round. CCIA would still investigate these reports, but hopefully a much simpler investigation that's expedited in relation to their scope and the punishments that could come from this. Like I said no PKing or anything. I also 110% understand your distrust for some command players, that's why my suggestion would still have minor CCIA involvement so a Head doesn't just Discord DM someone and go "Yeah you can't play your character for the rest of the month." 

I don't think we need to have everyone re-apply we simply update standards like when we required everyone to link their Byond account, didn't need to re-apply but you could lose your whitelist for not doing it just like you'll be expected not to abuse this and if you do well, bye-bye whitelist etc. If we don't trust our whitelisted players to be able to uphold such a simple standard why do we even have a whitelist you know?

Edited October 21, 2021 by Robotic Potato

[Carver]

My other, more general concern is that we have a system like this in effect: Security.

Almost every on-station issue that might require this can be covered by regulations, offering an on-station and lasting IC method of punishment. Indeed, if staff are not listening, discipline them with a permanent mark on their security record (Assuming no antag intervention).

[Lucaken]

After your explenation, I see your point a more clearly. However, I can still only support the on-station half of it. As for the relay, while you could call it disconnected, it remains opt-in. You can safely pretend it and it's contents do not exist, and probably be just fine. However, using faye's wording, 'oomph' is definitely something Command could do with. CCIA, while in an effective position to judge situations from above, are horribly disconnected from the players in a round, save for a few faxes sent to Command. So, I am somewhat in favour of increasing Command's presence in a round - albeit with the added caveats you mentioned, such as still letting CCIA be the final judge.

As for not 'trusting' Heads of Staff, while I get the concern, we already accept these kind of situations for other whitelists (such as old-time alien whitelistees coming back and refusing to keep up with new lore). If and when they fail to meet the new standards, they go through the same admin processes, and get filtered out that way. May result in some initial rocky times, but that's par for the course with any change.

[Marlon P.]

Sorry if i missed the answers to these:

How does it handle antags? If I beat up an antag and get a Head strike for it, im not an antag but it was related to antag activity.

Relatedly,

How are these appealed or removed?

[Robotic Potato]

6 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

Sorry if i missed the answers to these:

How does it handle antags? If I beat up an antag and get a Head strike for it, im not an antag but it was related to antag activity.

Relatedly,

How are these appealed or removed?

As this is only my suggest these questions would be best for the person who would actually implement it. Personally if I were the one doing it I'd say antag interactions are handle exactly how they are in IRs, as I'm not personally CCIA I'm blurry on that. Appeal/removal would be a system CCIA would also setup but I imagine the most simple way would be to escalate it to an IR for false/improper punishment; you can fight it if you think it's wrong but at the same time if you're in the wrong there's a chance it backfires.

 

37 minutes ago, Carver said:

My other, more general concern is that we have a system like this in effect: Security.

Almost every on-station issue that might require this can be covered by regulations, offering an on-station and lasting IC method of punishment. Indeed, if staff are not listening, discipline them with a permanent mark on their security record (Assuming no antag intervention).

I mentioned this bit, the current system only actually leaves these lasting marks on extended and is at most always be just an arbitrarily set fine and the record. This system like I said would be mainly for flavor so fitting IC punishments when just 5 minutes or 500 credits isn't enough to get through to someone or fitting/or wouldn't stay due to the round type despite no antag influence; by using the system you're saying this is a serious enough problem that occurred in normal circumstances and couldn't be handled just with the very limited means in-round.

[Carver]

45 minutes ago, Robotic Potato said:

I mentioned this bit, the current system only actually leaves these lasting marks on extended and is at most always be just an arbitrarily set fine and the record. This system like I said would be mainly for flavor so fitting IC punishments when just 5 minutes or 500 credits isn't enough to get through to someone or fitting/or wouldn't stay due to the round type despite no antag influence; by using the system you're saying this is a serious enough problem that occurred in normal circumstances and couldn't be handled just with the very limited means in-round.

The 5 minutes/500 credits isn't the punishment of the permanent mark, the permanent mark itself adds up and can very well lead to meaningful punishment. IRs are for repeat/egregious issues, Security are for singular issues.