Restructuring : Staffing and Administration Department

[Jamini]

Department of Staffing and Administration

Reports to: Head of Personal

Location: IAA Office, Detective office, bridge

Department Duties: Ensure all staff are following station directives, chain of command, and corporate regulations. Works closely with security to ensure that evidence, prisoner treatment, and misconduct charges are handled properly. Primary players in investigations, interrogation, and negotiation.

Alternate to gaining command channel access, HR could receive its own channel and headset. However I'm reluctant to state as such due to the fact that it might isolate the IAA and Detective too much from the rest of the station.

Jobs and Slots:

IAA Agent - 2

Detective - 1

Blue Shield - 1

Bridge Assistant - 2

Details:

IAA Agent

- As per current. The only change is that the IAA is expected to report to the Head of Personal (unless it is the Head of Personal they are handling a complaint on). Officially DOs are still their "heads", but the Head of Personal is essentially their "field boss".

-Lose Security Channel

-Gain Command Channel

-Gain Bridge and Meeting room Access

Detective

-The Detective no longer directly reports to security. Their security access is reduced to basic brig and interrogation.

-The Detective now has a direct line to command.

-Gains fax access

-Remains on the security channel for logistics reasons

-Gain Command Channel access.

-Gain Bridge and Meeting room Access

Blue Shield

-An idea lifted from a few other servers. Blue Shields are essentially bodyguards for command.

-Permitted to carry a holstered weapon and basic armor on green alert.

-Absolutely no authority to arrest or detain.

-Absolutely no command authority whatsoever.

-Loyalty Implanted

-Command Channel access

-Access: Bridge, Meeting Room.

Bridge Assistant

-Low-End administrative assistants. Same authority as all other assistants.

-Run as command "Gophers"

-A lead-in job for low-level command roles. Such as QM or HOP.

-Command Channel access

-Access: Bridge, Meeting Room

 

---

---

 

Security Changes

CSI Slots increased: 2 slots.

 

---

---

 

A small group of ideas. Essentially a creation of a new department to go with our upcoming map changes.

Basically, moving some investigative role out of security and into a sub-department designed for explicitly that. Detectives are moved more from "Police Detective" roles and more into "Corporate investigators". They gain a direct line to command, and most importantly, the captain. IAA likewise are again divorced from security and moved more towards their job of "watching the watchdogs".

Bridge Assistants are basically entry-level secretaries to help command out, while the Blue Shield is a bodyguard for at-risk command staff (primarily the captain).

All aforementioned staff would fall under the Head of Personal officially (except the IAA, who merely report to him unless an incident involves the head of personal)

Edited May 13, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

Can we have this? Please. Please can we? Id love to have HR Director also be an alt title for HoP. And currently, HR Duties are split between HOP and IAA and they kinda compete for complaints and such, this would change that.

[nanotoxin]

It'll be great not having IAA agents on the security channel telling officers what to do.

Also, are the departments services exclusively for humans? Or do you need to work on the title some more?

[SgtSammac]

Hmm, I like this idea.

Nano, I doubt it is human only, it's just that is the real title currently.

An alternative that might fit our 'Xeno friendly' station could be: Personnel resources or Personnel Services

[Jamini]

*cough* fixed.

Finding a better alternative to HR than what I put up just now might be prudent.

[Eliot Clef]

This is a pretty cool idea. I don't really have anything to add to it at all, just want to voice support for it as a concept.

[Guest]

I'll play devil's advocate here. What exactly is wrong with the detective fitting in the niche of a police detective? I can probably cite three or four people who enjoy playing detective as it is. Detective assists security in solving crimes and nabbing baddies by way of performing interrogations as well as taking eyewitness accounts on what happened and then filing case reports. This kind of thing is actually really fun, I would probably enjoy it more if I had a character for it. In my mind, immediately shunting them into a predominately paperpushing role, and separating them from security altogether, would immediately kill the allure to detective work.

I dislike the access changes to IAA and detective. While I don't mind the separation from IAA and security (god knows they need it), I dislike the possible notion that IAA may decide for themselves whether they have any sway in command decisions. The heads of staff in command are the ones with the whitelists, they make the choices here. IAA's around to slap people for ignoring/breaking procedure. Unless IAA is held under the same scrutiny as heads are if this change goes through, I'm mostly opposed to it.

I'm fine with the idea of bridge assistants and blueshields. Blueshields are awesome. Personally I think there should be two detectives and two CSIs.

Suggestions for blueshield access: Basic access to all departments, exclusions being high-security areas such as the engine, xenobiology, virology, armory, and head of staff offices, so they can get to a location to catch a bullet meant for a head of staff.

[Guest]

The heads of staff in command are the ones with the whitelists, they make the choices here.

Having a whitelist doesn't necessarily mean they are good. I can think of meny times where heads have made questionable choices or gotten a powertrip and forgotten the responsibility of a whitelisted player.

[Jakers457]

B-baka.

 

I know of a certain Captain who is flat out awful at being any sort of a leader so this statement is true. Baka indeed

Also I'd like this

[Skull132]

This idea has been considered prior. Or rather, something very similar to this. The Detective, FT and IAA were to form a secondary department lacking a direct head of staff, responsible for separate query and so forth. It was never really implemented, I forget the reasons why. The thread in question is on our forums, and if I get bored enough, I may fetch it.

There is one suggestion that I will flat out contest here: Blueshield.

This is a role that I am fully against. There is a complete and utter lack of need for such a role. The Internal Security Department is already staffed enough to provide protection for the Command Staff as need be. I want the Command Staff to be as dependent on Sec to provide for them, as they are on Engineering to provide power, and on Medical to revive their sorry arses if they get blown up. Having an individual armed and given a task this specific would being to undermine such a dependency. Further, a single armed individual is capable of turning the tide of most given situations, you should know this. Adding a Blueshield would knock off the balance of power already in place.

Also, to be considered is the role's accessibility, and literal cry to shoot stuff. If left unwhitelisted, the amount of folks we'd have to ban from it would be immensely stupid. If left whitelisted, we still risk running into encouraging a certain behaviour type that has already been demonstrated by a list of Captains and Heads of Security over the past year and a half. Meaning: even if whitelisted, we would still have to ban people from it. It is a task which makes the role exceed its redeeming value.

Second point. And I don't mean to sound this abrasive. But I sense an immense issue with this.

Department Duties: Ensure all staff are following station directives, chain of command, and corporate regulations.

 

The Internal Security Department is already fit, capable and otherwise well seated to complete this task. In fact, this is their primary duty. Their other duties are to provide for a safe working environment, to protect crew and equipment. Any duplicity in assigned tasks, or at least, once it goes beyond nuances, will be cause for unnecessary conflict. If this gets implemented, there needs to be a very clear line on what issue is fit for them, and what is fit for Security. Otherwise we will have the IAAvSec cases repeat themselves, but this time, on a much wider scale.

And as a personal side, also consider the sanctity of the Command channel. Adding more people to it, more people who lack an actual role in leadership, will ruin the reason for having it. The 6 additional voices will play havoc on the, sometimes already lacking, ability for communication that the Command Staff has. The less voices you have on Command net, the better.

[Tainavaa]

Additionally, 'bridge assistant' and 'blueshield' are already positions that have been arbitrarily filled previously.

We've had command guards, and we've had 'clerks'. Mostly Jackboot asking HOP's to be their clerk but it's happened and it's definitely doable as-is. The main reason we don't is because

1) People don't request the job

2) Supverising heads of staff don't want it

These are perfectly viable jobs that can be assigned in the round, the thing is people don't try to get them. I've never encountered #2.

[Jamini]

This idea has been considered prior. Or rather, something very similar to this. The Detective, FT and IAA were to form a secondary department lacking a direct head of staff, responsible for separate query and so forth. It was never really implemented, I forget the reasons why. The thread in question is on our forums, and if I get bored enough, I may fetch it.

 

I'd prefer they report to the Head of Personal, as I stated, as lack of oversight in a department often becomes a very clear issue. Not to mention that the head of personal does act as our HR crew-member already. Having a sub-department like this would encourage more people to play this rarely-filled and very important role more often.

Obviously the IAA and Detective would need some immunities by directive or regulation that allowed them to investigate their boss.

 

There is one suggestion that I will flat out contest here: Blueshield.

This is a role that I am fully against. There is a complete and utter lack of need for such a role. The Internal Security Department is already staffed enough to provide protection for the Command Staff as need be.

 

I respectfully disagree. Security rarely have the inclination and manpower to protect heads of staff. Far more often they are chasing down regulation breakers or hunting antagonists. Which is fine, their job is to ensure corporate regulations are followed. Having a bodyguard that reports to command/the hop and has no authority or responsibility to arrest would be a benefit.

Security clearly isn't on-station explicitly to protect command, nor do they act like it in the slightest.

The role's accessibility to a lethal weapon is on-par with the Detective as they currently are. If anything, your argument is more an argument to remove the detective's lethal handgun than anything else.

 

The Internal Security Department is already fit, capable and otherwise well seated to complete this task. In fact, this is their primary duty. Their other duties are to provide for a safe working environment, to protect crew and equipment. Any duplicity in assigned tasks, or at least, once it goes beyond nuances, will be cause for unnecessary conflict. If this gets implemented, there needs to be a very clear line on what issue is fit for them, and what is fit for Security. Otherwise we will have the IAAvSec cases repeat themselves, but this time, on a much wider scale.

 

I'd argue that they are not, actually, well-seated for such a task. As has been repeated time and time again. Security members, especially newer ones, are prone to abuse and ignoring directives and chain of command. Even experienced security members can be ridiculously gung-ho about asserting their authority for events where they have absolutely real reason to give input

This change would directly remove many teeth out of security's arsenal to abuse the crew. That is fully intended. They would be relegated, rightly, to "Upholding Regulations" and "Protecting Assets", while the Internal Affairs branch would handle all "Investigative" and "Human resources complaints" issues.

Security, frankly, has too much power. They need to have some of it moved elsewhere.

 

And as a personal side, also consider the sanctity of the Command channel. Adding more people to it, more people who lack an actual role in leadership, will ruin the reason for having it. The 6 additional voices will play havoc on the, sometimes already lacking, ability for communication that the Command Staff has. The less voices you have on Command net, the better.

 

That is why I did mention a HR channel would be an appropriate alternative.

[Skull132]

Security clearly isn't on-station explicitly to protect command, nor do they act like it in the slightest.

 

At which point, ask yourself whether there should be a body whose outright task is to protect command.

 

I'd argue that they are not, actually, well-seated for such a task. As has been repeated time and time again. Security members, especially newer ones, are prone to abuse and ignoring directives and chain of command. Even experienced security members can be ridiculously gung-ho about asserting their authority for events where they have absolutely real reason to give input

This change would directly remove many teeth out of security's arsenal to abuse the crew. That is fully intended. They would be relegated, rightly, to "Upholding Regulations" and "Protecting Assets", while the Internal Affairs branch would handle all "Investigative" and "Human resources complaints" issues.

Security, frankly, has too much power. They need to have some of it moved elsewhere.

 

Then I suggest you re-engage the issue. This would simply create more conflict, instead of actually solving the issue you're targeting. Adding more people with clearly conflicting interests serves to create just that -- conflict. It does not, properly, manage what you mentioned here. Instead it'll be a patchwork job and fall flat on its face as a result of that. Or rather, go up in flame and them fall flat on its face, circumstances considered.

[Jamini]

At which point, ask yourself whether there should be a body whose outright task is to protect command.

 

I think it is an interesting idea in and of itself, and possibly worth looking into. If the role ends up filled with shitters as you think, it isn't something that is going to last. I know of a few commanders that probably could use that extra hand and voice telling them to cool their jets /calm down.

Personally I think we'd end up with an equal ratio of good shields to bad shields as we do detectives currently. Especially if it becomes a semi-popular slot. The few times I've seen command bodyguards assigned, they have been fantastic. (Terrifying in mutiny though.)

Oh yeah, it would also make mutiny slightly easier for the head loyalist. There is that bonus.

It's not terribly difficult to simply remove the role suggestion and bump up the number of bridge assistants either.

 

Then I suggest you re-engage the issue. This would simply create more conflict, instead of actually solving the issue you're targeting. Adding more people with clearly conflicting interests serves to create just that -- conflict. It does not, properly, manage what you mentioned here. Instead it'll be a patchwork job and fall flat on its face as a result of that. Or rather, go up in flame and them fall flat on its face, circumstances considered.

 

I have engaged the issue time and time again, and will probably continue to do so.

Overall, security simply has too much authority and power in one department. Bad security step on toes constantly, and all too-often the entirety of a round boils down to "Security VS bad guys", leaving out the rest of the station.

Part of the core, crux issue is simply that they have too much invested in a single department. Removing some of that and moving it over to a department that probably SHOULD have that authority would be healthy and good for the server. In this case, moving some of the investigative ability from security to the HR sector would help force security to be more honest and open with the rest of the station.

We need to move away from security being the "Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner." and more into the "Cop" role.

[Guest]

The security officers are the cops. The head of the security, and in certain cases, the captain, is the judge and jury. The literal and often more metaphorical executioner is Central Command.

However, there is no defined playstyle to security. Sure, there are many idealistic ways we can hold security to as a commander, but what happens when we go offline? What does security do then?

It does its own thing, as it always has. As the other departments always have. Attempting to force a standard not everyone is going to be keen to isn't healthy from a gameplay and a balance perspective.

It's not fun when you're trying to police gameplay from here and back.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Guest

[Tainavaa]

They are the 'cop' role though. What does a cop do when they see someone being unruly in the street? They detain them if they don't stop. They get mad, they yell "I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA? IS THIS AMERICA? I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA." and they're taking off to jail against their will until they're processed and someone picks them up.

They are already funneled into the 'cop' role because they don't decide who goes to prison. They decide who to hold until transfer before they're handed off to law enforcement to be judged by qualified people.

EDIT: I would like emphasise the "I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA" bit as this is more often than not the case except in Aurora's context.

[mrimatool]

Love this idea sometimes I wish there wasn't a head of security and sec just listened to the other heads but that's a different topic.

Only problem is given this department access to Command, I think it should get access to it's own channel