Corporate Representatives, the Dystopianing

[Lmwevil]

We live in a corporate dystopia, but our highest ranking representatives from our parent corporations literally have 0 actual mechanical purpose on the ship, and remain one of if not the most neglected role on the ship. 

Both ICly and OOCly nobody really cares about or treats them with any weight, their faxes don't matter, they simply don't matter. 

The solution: 

Chain of Command goes as follows 
Captain > Command (their department) > Corp Reps (their corporation) 


Simply give corporate representatives some limited access to the departments that are relevant to their corp, and some weight they can throw around icly to remind people the boot of megacorporate is around. 

They're already locked behind the command WL, so usage of their authority would be scrutinized if abused and shouldn't be given the vetting process. 

We, as loyal megacorporate employees love our megacorporate overlords who are totally our friends and really a nice guy. https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/b395250c-93c5-4285-afb2-ffd559c36129


Once again, history shall prove me right, employees. Shall you side on the right side of history, or be unbased and cringemaxxed? The choice is yours. 

[Loorey]

I am going to jump into this thread right here. I love playing Corporate Representative and the role as a whole is great, RP-wise. It opens up a lot of fun and engaging opportunities in all kinds of directions. I got a bunch of Representative chars, most notably my Idris Rep, and it's gotten me and a bunch of other players into very fun situations here and there.

Now I wouldn't post here if I had no issues. What's my issues with the role then? Primarily, it's entirely OOC and a player issue:

The Corporate Representative has zero actual authority over anything or anyone in a direct sense, which in itself isn't the issue - the issue is that, players know this from an OOC perspective and opt to not give a fuck about any of their words and that carries over into their IC behavior. Again, I am saying "players" generally here, it's not everyone it's just a majority of people. Why should people care about what a rep has to say?

Your character is employee of Corporation X, entirely irrelevant and replaceable in the big picture - just a small cog in the clockwork. At any point in time someone can just say "Well, off you go." and they're sitting on the street. A corporate representative, who not only makes infinitely more money and looks good on paper, but is also likely in a position of power, middle-management kind of power in the corporation to be able to represent it - not all of them, but most. I am not saying people should be "FORCED TO BE LOYAL" but we need to take a few steps into that direction if we want our setting to be more coherent, at least I think so.

Corporate Representatives should be represented at least a tad bit in actual chains of authority, they should not be able to make any impactful decisions ship-command wise, though they should be able to influence employees - normal crewmembers - that sit under the corporation they represent. They should be an additional element in the chain of command, not on the same level and definitely below ship command, still acting as advisors into their direction, but seen as a higher authority in the whole picture and get some kind of authority over the normal crew.

[Nagito Komaeda]

21 minutes ago, Loorey said:

Corporate Representatives should be represented at least a tad bit in actual chains of authority, they should not be able to make any impactful decisions ship-command wise, though they should be able to influence employees - normal crewmembers - that sit under the corporation they represent. They should be an additional element in the chain of command, not on the same level and definitely below ship command, still acting as advisors into their direction, but seen as a higher authority in the whole picture and get some kind of authority over the normal crew.

This feels like the core of what the Corporate Representative should do. Ideally, they could go "I want all Zavodskoi personnel to line up here for uniform inspections", and the department's heads of staff facilitate this. After all, being a part of the SCC means appeasing to the individual companies that make up the body of the SCC.

Personally, I'm all for this, as long as this is done with tact. Corporate Representatives are locked behind the Command whitelist, which should already indicate a base level of trust in the players. People should be wary of their corporation's representative, but they should still be able to tug on their boss' sleeves if the representative is being obstructive of SCC goals.

[Loorey]

5 minutes ago, Nagito Komaeda said:

People should be wary of their corporation's representative, but they should still be able to tug on their boss' sleeves if the representative is being obstructive of SCC goals.

As mentioned by not only myself but @Lmwevil too, they'd be ultimately under Heads of Staff still, though above normal crew members (of their own corporations). A corporate representative should focus on the goals of the conglomerate, but ultimately the ones of their own corporation before what the SCC thinks, it's what they are there for. Obviously if they step way too out of the line, a Head of Staff could tell them off - though they should keep their current "immunities". But: Reps should be able to act with autonomy and push around their employees "within reason" and without interference or having to cry for permissions.

[hazelmouse]

1 hour ago, Lmwevil said:

The solution: 

Chain of Command goes as follows 
Captain > Command (their department) > Corp Reps (their corporation) 

I'm very fond of this idea! I honestly already act as if this is basically the case - a representative of your corporation is your superior and has an immense sway over your employment, so why wouldn't you march lock-and-step with what they want from you? It'd be nice if they could do it without needing to constantly defer to departmental heads. I wish the exploitative power dynamic of megacorporate employment was represented more in-game, and I agree it'd work best when there's a stick representatives can bonk someone with if they refuse to play along.

[dessysalta]

I have mixed feelings on this. In no particular order:

A representative is a liaison/big voice for the employee/little guy and they shouldn't have an OOC right to play games with the workforce—not everything needs to be codified like this IMO. You can make the argument that Representatives can't fire/order you (officially) despite the superior status because they operate on a wholly different level; Jane from accounting has no say over John from the Big Gun Division because that sort of thing would be way too outside their bounds such that it would be stepping on the toes of whoever is directly above John in that instance (corporate dystopia or not, if that happens enough it would really anger a lot of hard-working folk in the lower ranks of command).

The most important thing against this that comes to mind is that reps (and consuls) exist especially to get you into the lore and play a big part in character arcs and changes. Without them you would have people begging normal employees to answer whatever a Moghes or Zawvawdskoy is and there would be zero recourse outside of HR (CCIA) to get things done on an individual basis. If you put them into the chain of command you give them less opportunities to do that and more to just mess with whoever works for their corporation (or worse, department). I also think that being part of the command whitelist (which is predominantly leading and communicating) isn't necessarily indicative of how well you do in an executive position like the consular officer or corporate rep. There's overlap, but there's enough different that I would say they shouldn't be compared—but this is neither here nor there and errs on policy discussion.

With all of that said, and how I've noticed that bosses that are assholes are surprisingly hard to come by in the dog-eat-dog dystopia Aurora is set in (love you Sasha Kaiser and Karl Voigt), I feel like when you play in the aforementioned setting that has said in no uncertain terms that the employees are cattle and the ranks of command are pets, you're automatically opting into being told what to do and having your character made miserable. It actually annoys the hell out of me (half joking) that consuls and execs fall to the wayside more often than not because the players (both command and not) don't understand just how much power they wield and don't want to exert it on anyone else, paired with the numerous employees that get away with badmouthing their parent corporation (even command badmouths them in some instances). 

TL;DR Ultimately I'm all for more things that emphasize the dreary nature and attitude of the Auroraverse, but I think that codifying representatives into the chain of command doesn't really do that.

What about this: instead of giving reps physical authority in the COC, we give them more corporate authority? Leniency to create IRs over slights and, while not issue direct orders, the ability to strongarm either their "employees" or the supervising command figure (i.e. a PMCG rep talks to the PMCG HOS and gives them a very good reason to make that employee do what they say). This makes it more low-key and could be argued is more realistic due to the underhanded nature of it all, and it would encourage socialization on all fronts (ICly and OOCly) rather than purely ICly or between the rep and employees (rather than also including command). It's also so much more scummy feeling than if you were to actually put them in SOP.

[Carver]

I mostly play Corp Rep these days so I should probably have a lot more to say than I actually do. As far authority goes, I've rarely felt a lack of it when I did ask things of Command, it's usually more often seen that the odd non-command person is overly disrespectful which I've found to be less of a corp rep problem than an excessive anti-corporate problem. In many cases, I suspect that I could simply write an IR and it might see some decent impact, but- writing IRs is fucking annoying and I'm certain will cause some overt OOC dislike from any individuals suffering potential consequences of said IRs (as they are, regardless of intent, generally seen as character complaint-lite). When it comes down to brass tacks, more sway could be useful but in many cases it'd still ultimately circle around to more IRs no matter what you change of it - shitty employees will be shitty regardless of regs and SOP. Ultimately I don't really have much of an opinion for or against codifying a stronger level of sway over said individuals, but I felt that my perspective was worth sharing due to my experience with the role.

From all of what's been said here so far, the only thing I'd notably desire is a teensy bit more access, namely just enough to get to the command meeting room. I can't go to said meeting room on the bridge without being let in since the remap, whereas the old bridge arrangement gave access to said room readily to reps and consulars. As for department access, eh, I guess it could have use but I've never felt a pressing need to directly enter departments in any case where I couldn't just ask to be let in (even during emergency I've never seen this sort of request refused).

[Loorey]

12 hours ago, dessysalta said:

TL;DR Ultimately I'm all for more things that emphasize the dreary nature and attitude of the Auroraverse, but I think that codifying representatives into the chain of command doesn't really do that.

Simply put: it does.

12 hours ago, dessysalta said:

You can make the argument that Representatives can't fire/order you (officially) despite the superior status because they operate on a wholly different level; Jane from accounting has no say over John from the Big Gun Division because that sort of thing would be way too outside their bounds such that it would be stepping on the toes of whoever is directly above John in that instance (corporate dystopia or not, if that happens enough it would really anger a lot of hard-working folk in the lower ranks of command).

You can argue about the role itself and responsibilities all day around, there is no exact definition and people have the freedom to shift what the "actual job" of their representative is, which makes the role great fun; not just being "boring HR representative #28372". Though, at least in my head, corporate executives sent to the Horizon are put into a special place by the corporation they represent. In any actual, real-life corporation something like this would certainly be an additional task in the task-set of said executive and likely also net them some bonuses; I'd say it nets them more say too, at least only regarding to current shift they choose to "participate" in.

12 hours ago, dessysalta said:

Jane from accounting has no say over John from the Big Gun Division

Simply put, to cut this out of the bigger quote above: Every executive tends to be infinitely more important than any normal employee no matter what, and that is what is represented on-ship too, currently. The only thing that is not represented is actual power. It's how corporations operate, you can be the best engineer or gunman known, John "Random" Doe from HR/Accounting/whatever that contributes next to nothing of actual value but is in an executive position is more important than you in a big company sense. Period. And that's not just the case in a corporate dystopia, that's the case in the real world.

12 hours ago, dessysalta said:

that reps (and consuls)

We are talking exclusively about corporate representatives here, not consulars.

12 hours ago, dessysalta said:

Leniency to create IRs over slights and, while not issue direct orders, the ability to strongarm either their "employees" or the supervising command figure

This is great, and would be great - but without anything forcing something like this upon command/employee/whatever it won't work. That's entirely an ooc/player issue. We don't have to explicitly incorporate them into the chain of command, but there needs to be a point of pressure giving them more ability to act, something that forces a player to listen to them.

 

[Loorey]

12 hours ago, Carver said:

In many cases, I suspect that I could simply write an IR and it might see some decent impact, but-

You are correct. I could write a bunch of Incident Reports for a lot of things happening, but I reckon a lot of them would be shrugged of, binned or outright lead nowhere. And honestly? Some stuff doesn't need a permanent tick on someone's record, just a wrist slap on-shift.

12 hours ago, Carver said:

writing IRs is fucking annoying

Yes, writing them can be annoying, especially if you write them for every teensy thing happening.

12 hours ago, Carver said:

and I'm certain will cause some overt OOC dislike from any individuals suffering potential consequences of said IRs

Honestly, personally? I do not care. People have to live with the fact that their actions will one day or another indeed have consequences, it's how it goes. But, in the bigger sense, I feel like this is driving a lot of players away from even writing an Incident Report, even if it's much warranted. It's definitely an initial barrier that has to be climbed and can be a big problem for some.

My TL;DR: I've previously in all of my posts cut into that; executives need the power to wrist slap and punish someone in-round or alternatively command has to be forced to carry those out if they're warranted, no matter what they personally thing or faxes are properly respected and answered and then get responses for punishment to be carried out. (Yes, CCIA - I know, you do these things, but sorry, I tend to have a feeling that in the past most of my faxes have been ignored without me telling someone to explicitly answer them).

[CatsinHD]

I'll add my two cents, although for the most part I don't play corp rep and don't mind them.

Here's the big thing and what is, in my opinion, one of the most egregious mis-uses of alt-titles in the thread. THE ROLE IS CALLED CORPORATE LIAISON. The alt-title (Corporate Executive) hell has returned once again in a similar, but uniquely different way that Electricians of old would refuse to start the engine on the Aurora II. At the end of the day, they are a liaison or a representative. Their purpose is to represent the interests of their corporation and its workers. I wasn't a fan when the alt-title was added, and I still dislike it now.

HOWEVER, before we get into a debate over alt-titles and other such things, I will agree to one thing: Liaisons should have some level of in-round power over exclusively their workers. They are not command, a Zavod rep should not have the ability to order a Zavod Secoff like they're a Head of Security. However, if that zavod employee is being an asshole, or disgracing the reputation of Zavodskoi, then the Liaison should have full ability to dock their pay, fine them, make a note on their record (btw, we should make record comments permanent with the ability to delete them like sec charges), whatever else it may be. Anything that is not under the jurisdiction of the regulations, or command itself since those are already handled by the XO and ISD. Call it HR lite or what have you.

My end goal with the above paragraph is to allow the reps to have some level of power that is not already covered by Command, and does not supersede their authority. Corp Liaisons should be entirely focused on their company's interests, the workers, and their image with the rest of the SCC and the Spur. This can range from influencing command to act in a way that aligns with your corp's interests, or getting onto one of your employees for shit talking a ghost-role ship crew.

[dessysalta]

5 hours ago, Loorey said:

-snip-

The only thing I'd like to add here is that in mentioning consuls it was more to emphasize both roles are a lore position and have things to do, such that giving them more or less toys or power could potentially detract from that. 

Other than that, you make good points. My fear comes from a worst case scenario wherein the execs ordering people around comes across as too comically evil or unrealistic.

[Loorey]

On 04/09/2024 at 18:19, CatsinHD said:

make a note on their record (btw, we should make record comments permanent with the ability to delete them like sec charges), whatever else it may be

I want records to exist only accessible and modifiable by Corporate Representatives/Liaisons (maybe command can view 'em, but definitely not edit them, that should be CorpRep&CCIA only) in regards to the following suggestion;

I can see what I can whip up and play around with the idea for a bit, ultimately it would be a way for Representatives to track employee behavior / conduct, people can see their own records and CCIA / Staff can administrate it if there's anything fishy. Maybe it'll even see implementation, who knows...

On 04/09/2024 at 18:19, CatsinHD said:

My end goal with the above paragraph is to allow the reps to have some level of power that is not already covered by Command, and does not supersede their authority.

Besides the records part, this is something that has to be done on CCIA (or whoever handles that exactly) side, to actually modify procedure, chain of command or whatever to give them some levels of actual authority. I do not want them to supersede or interfere with command in any way, though they should have their power one way or another. Records are very cool, I'd love them, I am willing to implement them and they'd make for great cross-round cross-rep RP too - but I still stand by the fact that there should be some power too.

On 04/09/2024 at 22:36, dessysalta said:

My fear comes from a worst case scenario wherein the execs ordering people around comes across as too comically evil or unrealistic.

Player/Whitelist issue; the role is locked for quality control for a reason. If someone misbehaves, they catch administrative action / a whitelist strip. It's quite easy to backtrack.

[Flpfs]

I believe that Corporate Representatives should be able to suspend their company's employees for actions/behavior that is unbecoming for that company's standards, and that the command WL should be harder to get but also harder to lose.

This should come with the SOP modification that the Captain or a Captain-level decision may override this if the employee's skills are direly needed (code red, medical emergencies, etc.)