Reworking CCIA Incident Reports

[naut]

So recently I was part of a discussion talking about the status of in-character Incident Reports (IRs) done by CCIA staff, particularly regarding the way they were handled, how they apply, their process of information gathering/interviewing, and the roleplay element they contribute to, if any. I'd like to use this thread as feedback and discussion for potentially overhauling the way some IRs work, rather than shouting into the wind and complaining about problems.

Some suggestions from the masses (I don't necessarily support any of these but I just want to throw in what's been talked about so far):

• Denying IRs that clearly are of little consequence to anyone and seemingly don't deserve HR's time to investigate.
• Encouraging Discord interviews either through the relay or through Discord messaging. Current stigma is that Discord interviews are a "last resort" and discouraged.
• Being more transparent in punitive action given to individuals, even if it's only available OOCly.
• Making CCIA interviews less "boring" and more proactive discussions, possibly by involving multiple people in the same interview.

[Powder Miner]

I do have to disclaim a little: I haven't been involved in any IRs. But one moment that stuck out for me in my play recently was being involved in some rather fun rp involving workplace harassment and realizing: "The only reason this can exist and be fun is that everybody involved has tacitly chosen not to IR the situation."

And I think that's a huge shame. I actually on a conceptual level like IRs quite a bit - the idea that the corporate processes of HR decisionmaking are in-character and accessible is something quite unique to Aurora. I do really like the idea that escalation up to the company level is a potential continuation of RP - but I also have begun to take the view recently that IRs are actually ultimately more of a curb to RP than a continuation of it.

Coming from the perspective of someone who is not involved in the CCIA process, I think it looks to me like it is not clear whether IRs are an extension of IC conflict RP, OR whether they are an OOC means of curating the server atmosphere, handling things that are largely just out-of-line through semi-IC means rather than direct admin action. I think the result of this is that whether or not IRs are made primarily as a continuation of in-character conflict, they ultimately vanish into an invisible black hole of punishment. Entering this invisible black hole, most people don't know what to expect, except that there may be a possibility of character loss. Outside observers won't know what is going on, except that IRs can result in character loss, resulting in a lot of joking around or commenting on that exact possibility.

An IR might not result in character loss, and in fact by the looks of it very rarely does, but the process seems to be a source of a lot of anxiety and hours of an often unenjoyable process rather than being something that you might want to have a character involved in. And I suspect that the idea that you could want to get involved in an IR would come off as very silly to many players - is it not a punishment? But is it an IC punishment, or is it an OOC punishment? Should you as a player feel bad and that you have made a mistake if you get IR'd?

Making the results of this process a little more transparent seems desirable, to help IRs be visible continuations of conflict RP rather than an anxiety-inducing stop to it. I like ideas that make IRs more enjoyable and less difficult to participate in for everyone, including CCIA. But of course these are both things that are only really possible if the intention is indeed to have IC mechanisms for conflict continuation and resolution, rather than to more softly curb behaviors that run against the OOCly-desired server atmosphere. Of course, if it's a partially OOC punishment, then confidentiality and strictness make a lot of sense. But I think it should be more clear which one of these things an IR is supposed to be.

Edited November 19 by Powder Miner

[Fluffy]

My opinion on IRs is almost completely negative, for the following reasons:

 

1) You can only lie to defend yourself or choose not to comment, at which point we might aswell hand out the logs if all I have to do is telling you what happened or just say "nuh huh I'm not talking" (which also means you know the person isn't innocent, otherwise why would I refuse to comment, I'd just tell you the truth). How this rule isn't an OOC-in-IC influence/consideration is anyone's guess, because to me it looks very much like it's breaking the OOC-IC separation if you can't even lie to protect your friend/boss/whatever. My suggestion on this: You can lie, but only to defend someone, aka you cannot lie to have someone punished, only to avoid your friend/colleage/boss being punished. If you get caught lying, you get punished for lying too, so it's not risk free, prisoner dilemma etc. etc.

2) The punishments are just boring, so there's no fun to be gained by them, for what I saw, it's either "you got a fine and some retraining" (noone cares), "you are demoted to play something you might not like to play and if you want your character back you better play it" (not only boring, but antithetical to an healthy environment to have someone forced to play something he doesn't want to, with a character hostage) (possibly I misunderstood and you just need to pretend you did that job for X time, but still not fun either way), or "we have just deleted your character, sorry" (this can be fun, depending on the circumstances, but I don't think it should be available outside of events and/or with the consent of the playing player to do so). My suggestion on this: I want the SCC to be more dystopic ICly and less fun police OOCly, demotions and deletions have to be agreed upon or spurred from canon events, introduce fun punishments like idk shock collars if you assault someone, that said person can trigger (with reason) if you try to do it again, loyalty implants, I don't know I'm just spitballing here, but fun things.

3) I remember someone (I think Bear?) once said something on the likes of "if we don't punish these things ICly we'd punish them OOCly", I don't think I can put into words how wrong it felt to read it to me, I don't think this tool/thing should be used to punish people, we have moderators for that, it should only be an extension of the gameplay fun, I think seeing it in the optic of "punishing people" is disheartening if not outright concerning, maybe I misremember something about this because I still feel incredolous by just re-reading this, but I am fairly convinced to remember this thing, that's the moment I changed my mind from CCIA as per current use/implementation just not being something I am interested in engaging with, to it being a detrimental factor for the server. My suggestion on this: Don't. IC only, for fun only.

4) Complete opacity, we do not know what happens with other characters IRs, I think this sealing makes them less interesting as we don't OOCly know what happens with them. My suggestion on this: Make the outcome (OOCly) known, ICly not known, like the report themselves, and the interviews and relevant documentation too.

5) Your trial happens secluded from all sights, and you can't participate in them, nor really be defended. You just give an interview answering some questions and you get an email later possibly saying your character is being deleted (see the point above). My suggestion on this: I heard a good argument (also from Bear) that doing a process kinda thing would be heavy on the CCIA team, and as much as I'd like them with lawyers and all, I understand his concerns/point on this, I'd however like to have it as an option for major crimes or similar, eg. combining it with my points above: "Yes, I am ok with my character being deleted for this, however I want a public trial" kinda thing, I think it's something that would both benefit in terms of canonicity (something canon to do), fun, and rare enough that it wouldn't be heavy on the CCIA team to do. I do not know the details and they can be discussed to see what would work for everyone, but some sort of trial option happening once in a while would be in my opinion a nice addition. Corporate lawyers also often exchange emails etc. for minor things, maybe have the option to have someone playing a lawyer character and negotiate etc. with CCIA (via the IR thread, pretend-be email)? That seems another possible avenue for this.

I possibly have other ideas, but that's what I can muster to remember about it at this time (6AM local time), if I recall more, I'll add them later.

[Carver]

As opacity goes, can’t you read the punishments on the web interface? Is that just a Command WL thing that I can read them there? I assume it’s something wholly OOC either way, but I’ve had no issues reading the outcomes more or less transparently there.

Generally, I like IRs. I remember when they were added, I remember why they were added (handling characters who act unreasonable for corporate personnel but who aren’t breaking server rules), and I’ve yet to really see any reason to change them. From my experience with a prior interview, I hadn’t assumed that discord interviews weren’t favoured, as the individual handling it told me that discord was entirely acceptable and without issue as a medium for it. I personally prefer said medium since it keeps observers out of the matter (I would not want to use the relay for that reason).

If discord is discouraged then I agree that it shouldn’t be. I also agree that, to an extent, things should be transparent - the web interface seems to handle this rather perfectly as-is, but perhaps it can be directed to a little more visibly. Otherwise, IRs are a very well-functioning system that I wouldn’t want to see changed. They serve an extremely important purpose in helping to keep characters behaving reasonably, at least canonically, and if more were subjectively thrown out as ‘inconsequential’ then I fear that the alternative would be character/player complaints.

[Owen]

5 hours ago, Carver said:

As opacity goes, can’t you read the punishments on the web interface? Is that just a Command WL thing that I can read them there?

Command WL is required to see the CCIA actions. I also believe that Command IC has access to read the resolved actions. 

[FlamingLily]

Having been in the discord discussion that triggered this post, and having defended the IR process a bit during it, I've had some time to think and have changed my mind.

 

To me, there is one huge issue with IRs that make their current situation unappealing. They don't feel like they're in character actions. They feel like a staff sit on a Gmod DarkRP server. Maybe that's harsh, but that's the impression I've come away with. You go to a secluded place on the map, give a testimony bound by many OOC rules (see: lying), wait a while for silent staff deliberations, and sometimes come away with a character being deleted, suspended, job changed, or something else that while sure, might be a story moment, most often just feels like an OOC penalty because it changes the way you play, usually in a way you don't like.

As it stands, I like the concept of having a way to report particularly egregious issues up to Corporate, to call in The Big Dogs, et cetera. I like the concept because the concept introduces the possibility for these being big story moments for characters, their narratives, their lives and experiences. Roleplay is fundamentally the collaborative creation of a bunch of narratives and character arcs, and having a serious punishment levied by corporate can easily be a defining story moment for a character. The problem is that an IR and its results aren't performed in a way to be a story moment. They're not designed in such a way to facilitate the story that the Offender's player is trying to tell, nor are they designed in such a way to have any storytelling involvement from any party. I've made an IR before, and thinking on it now, I think I regret doing it, because it shut down what otherwise might have been an interesting inter-character conflict (i mean, said other character also dying didn't help... R.I.P. Kei Nakai), but the point is that what might've been an interesting avenue for character development and storytelling turned into a few borderline OOC interviews over the span of a week and a week long suspension, just because it made the most sense for my character to make an IR at the time.

The fact that no parties involved have any sway in the matter at all (no, I don't agree that the interviews are sway in the matter) is, in my eyes, the main thing that turns an IR from a storytelling device into a pseudo-administrative action. I also believe there's a very real possibility of IRs being misinterpreted as being placed in the service of an OOC grudge against the offender's player (and not their character) (or, perhaps more worrying, the possibility of an IR actually being placed for a grudge). While I'll freely admit that misusing the IR system is probably pretty rare, I do think that the perception that it can be misused is maybe not as rare as it seems.

So how do we fix this? Personally, I think the writing's on the walls of this thread.

On 19/11/2024 at 14:36, Powder Miner said:

"The only reason this can exist and be fun is that everybody involved has tacitly chosen not to IR the situation."

People have fun when they agree OOCly. People tell compelling stories when they communicate about the direction of those stories. Communication, agreement, discussion, all of these are VITAL to a healthy roleplay environment, and these are what the IR system is lacking. It's unusual, if not frowned upon, to talk with the "other" side of an IR about that IR on an OOC level. It's especially non-standard to talk with the CCIA staff member OOCly about anything more than interview times. If we can figure out a way to bring that level of communication back into the IR process, to let people discuss the desired outcomes of their characters from the IR, I think that'll make IRs actually engaging as an avenue for character development and storytelling.

People don't like IRs because they don't like losing the control of their stories. That is, to me, the core of the issue. (All of this assumes that IRs are in character and a storytelling element, and not an OOC staff punishment. If they're an OOC staff punishment, I think it's been handled in a really poor way.)

I also agree with Fluffy, that the existing duality of punishments (those being purely roleplay/ignorable things like reprimands, retraining, fines, whatever, versus suspensions/demotions/terminations) aren't necessarily that engaging, and I think letting the involved parties talk about possible punishments would help to introduce some more interesting scenarios.

 

Also, to put it plainly, the fact that IRs aren't something anyone can see the results of just makes them a bit boring? I think making outcomes OOCly viewable would make things much more interesting, even just that by itself.

Edited November 20 by FlamingLily
reworded some stuff

[Dreamix]

16 hours ago, Carver said:

As opacity goes, can’t you read the punishments on the web interface? Is that just a Command WL thing that I can read them there? I assume it’s something wholly OOC either way, but I’ve had no issues reading the outcomes more or less transparently there.

Being able to see only the outcomes is exactly the opposite of transparency (well, only worse would be if the outcomes weren't posted either). Someone opens up an IR, and maybe a week later, or two weeks, or a month later, the IR is closed and the resulting actions are posted in the web interface (maybe).

There's no insight into how the CCIAA have made their decisions, what arguments they have considered, who they interviewed, if they were biased towards or against someone, if they followed the IR process or rules (I don't think that's public either). The average player has no way to know any of that, and the outcomes may as well be decided by dice rolls. I know they're not just rolling dice and I trust they're doing their jobs properly, but it's the opposite to how admin/moderation staff work, and I put much more trust in admins/mods here.

 

On 19/11/2024 at 04:36, Powder Miner said:

But one moment that stuck out for me in my play recently was being involved in some rather fun rp involving workplace harassment and realizing: "The only reason this can exist and be fun is that everybody involved has tacitly chosen not to IR the situation."

I also very much agree with this, and I've had this exact thought a couple times in the past. Sure, IRs punishments start out small, like a reprimand or a mandatory training course, but it's still forcing someone to waste time on interviews, and putting them in the position of uncertainty wondering just how much in trouble they really are. And if there's multiple of these IRs, it's potentially removing a character, that someone has put many hours into developing.

 

I also agree with the other arguments listed in the thread. CCIAA are a OOC force, giving out OOC punishments, that the player is forced to pretend to engage with in a IC way. I've been in like 2 or 3 IRs, a long while ago, but they've not been a fun experience at all. Being forced to attend the interviews, and "roleplay" (which is basically just reading logs and telling what happened), knowing that I'm trouble and may lose the char (if I lie by accident or say something dumb), is not fun. The IR could maybe help develop a character arc, but the interviews are just plain stressful. I'd rather just talk to an admin about toning down my char or something.

I'm sorry if these thoughts read as pretty negative about CCIAA, but like, idk, most of they do is hand out punishments to player characters. I do wish CCIAA could have more positive impact, and more roles beyond just handling IRs.

 

-----------------

So, uh, as this is a suggestion thread, my suggestions are:

• Remove personal IR interviews entirely (where it's just one CCIAA/HRA agent and one player character).
• Maybe introduce interviews where both IR parties can talk to each other (the char that opened up the IR, and the other char that is the offender), moderated by the CCIAA/HRA agent. I think that would be fun roleplay, and would make it less about punishing someone and more about resolving issues between two characters.
• Make the whole process more transparent. Use the IR threads, where CCIAA would write who they interviewed, what were the conclusions from the interviews, what are the results of the IR, etc. There should be IC notes and OOC considerations.
• Add some meaningful functions to CCIAA/HRA that aren't about punishing characters. Out of ideas for this one atm.

Edited November 20 by Dreamix

[greenjoe]

2 hours ago, Dreamix said:

Remove personal IR interviews entirely (where it's just one CCIAA/HRA agent and one player character).

With this, how would it be handled if there is something that needs to be said more privately to the agent, rather then right to the offender's face while they are in this group interview?

[Dreamix]

1 hour ago, greenjoe said:

With this, how would it be handled if there is something that needs to be said more privately to the agent, rather then right to the offender's face while they are in this group interview?

Group interviews wouldn't work for every type of IR, it was just one of the suggestions.

But the idea is that, most of the interviews that I've seen, and the ones I've participated in, are just a series of questions like "did this happen", "yeah", "and what did you do", "I did that", "...".

So why not cut that out? Just provide the logs or whatever, and write how your char would say what happened, or what they know. CCIAA need to check logs anyways to see if you're not lying to get someone else in trouble.

If you wanted to lie or something, you'd just request a personal interview, or say "my char would actually lie about this" when asked.

Edited November 20 by Dreamix

[Powder Miner]

At the very least, if Carver is right and IRs really are a mechanism to curate the desired level of server believability, it really needs to be treated like it. If IRs are being promoted as a natural outcome for IC conflict, treated by many of the people filing and receiving IRs as a natural outcome for IC conflict, and even treated at least partially by CCIA as a natural outcome for conflict, then actually being a punitive mechanism means that a pipeline is created funneling natural and even beneficial conflict RP directly into a punishment mechanism. I really doubt that this is actually what ANYONE has in mind, especially given that IRs are a lot more onerous than quite a few more unambiguous forms of punishment. Would you rather receive an OOC note which is quick and directly communicative or an IC reprimand which is lengthy, takes a lot of effort, and is ambiguous about whether or not it’s even supposed to be a punishment?

[OolongCow]

I think there's a common misconception by people newer to the server that CCIA is meant to be the end-all be-all for conflict resolution and punishing someone, when that's not really the case. It's explicitly preferred for command to handle it in-round. CCIA exists to handle things command isn't able to, either due to the constraints of round length, or because of the severity of what happened. A perceived overreliance on CCIA is in part because command players feel like it's their only means to control people, mostly due to not having any punishment to leverage except fines (pointless if the other person doesn't feel like RPing that they care, since money is genuinely worthless and round-to-round) and suspension for a single shift (and usually not even a full one). I think that if command was given more levers, even if it's just leaving notes on their employment record similarly to how brig charges stick, there would be a lot fewer frivolous IRs.

[Lmwevil]

I think that CCIA should probably be removed, personally. I like it, but I think that people use ccia actions as an excuse to not be held accountable for rule breaking ooc actions, it's kinda hard to explain my perspective. I don't think it really adds much to the server these days. 

Furthermore: CCIA is also extremely toothless compared to the days where it'd actually fire people with 30+ canon charges on a character, there's 0 transparency to the process to anyone involved on an ooc level and that's also bad. 

EDIT: 
The whole thing with roleplaying is like, the fact you're playing characters and have a healthy ooc communication too, in order to not make it a toxic dynamic, even moreso if you have a position of power over someone else icly. 

Put it this way, someone you never roleplay with appears, they enact divine justice, but nobody knows oocly what happened unless they delve the web interface of being a command member, which would arguably be ic at that point due to the command wl requirement. 

The requirements of rationale and such are needed in player reports that the moderation team have to handle, and ccia is for some reason infinitely less transparent than the administration and that's b a d. 

[FlamingLily]

I know I've already commented on this and perhaps it's bad form to leave another comment but my previous one detailed why IRs aren't really working for what I see them as: that being the ultimate IC tool for conflict resolution/character development, but I kind of didn't address the elephant in the room.

Are IRs used as IC conflict resolution and do they operate as such? Or, are they used as OOC rule/tone/believably enforcement and operate as such?

 

To me, while I believe they should be the former... they're not. They feel far more like OOC judgements, as much has been pretty clearly stated in the thread thus far. And, as many people have stated, this is a bad thing. Instead of going on a longwinded textwall i'm just going to put my thoughts in dot points.

• An OOC judgement should never be framed as an IC one. Even if the intent of an IR is to be IC, they're clearly being interpreted by the users as OOC, and that alone signals that a change is necessary. Clear division between OOC and IC is ESSENTIAL to healthy RP, and the current IR scheme does not support that.
• They can technically be appealed, but the scheme feels half-baked. The dedicated CCIA appeals process is purely IC, which means you can't raise matters of procedure, et cetera (the procedure is also extremely obscured and unclear, anyhow). You CAN raise a staff complaint, if an OOC matter arises (and somehow, you learn of it), but this is leaving the realm of IRs entirely, now.
• CCIA is an entirely different team from the main moderation team. I don't mean this at all as an insult or a criticism against any members of CCIA or CCIA generally, and I certainly don't mean to imply CCIA is in any way misusing their power or anything. To me, there's just something weird about there being a completely adjacent staff team who work on a very similar topic area to the main staff team and yet share none of the policies and hierarchy etc. I will admit I don't really know how the staff teams are structured here but, I'm sure this point is at least somewhat applicable.

[Lmwevil]

To clarify what you said Flaminglily, we as moderators have literally 0 oversight or transparency on any ccia action. I believe only admins and head staff can see ccia channels, and they only talk to us to check if ooc action was done on a particular IR or if they believe ooc action would be more apt for a certain class of thing (doesn't happen often but there's precedent for particular types of things that really shouldn't be handled ic). Sometimes logs are requested, but mostly it's a closed system that the Moderation team has no interaction with.

Though to be fair the Moderation team has 0 interaction with any other team (lore ccia devs) formally outside of like rule or lore infractions, only admins have permission to spawn in items so and so forth so it's not really surprising, as we get 0 access to any tools outside of banning and notes. 

The Administration team may be far more integrated with CCIA and have a lot of oversight? I'm unsure, but CCIA probably have different methods compared to moderation, given that we have a very strict hierarchy (tmod, mod, secondary admin, primary admin, head staff, host) and CCIA are just (CCIA agent, CCIA lead, Admins(?) and Head Staff). I suppose if there was more transparency I'd be able to give a more clear answer as to how much integration we have, in general none though. Like for CCIA actions we as mods see the same stuff that command WL holders do, not any backend if there is any for reasoning or investigation etc. 


EDIT: 

I should say that Mods probably would take precedent over CCIA if there was a dispute over something like if something should be handled ic or ooc just because CCIA are more paperpushers than rule enforcers, and we have sole authority over OOC stuff which they have none over. 

Edited November 21 by Lmwevil

[N8-Toe]

My view of IR's and the current implementation of CCIA is fully a negative one.

 

IR's in my opinion are a chilling effect on roleplay, they inhibit petty conflict or disputes in the RP. It extends conflict in a boring, unfun, and opaque way that removes player agency. We have such a deep setting and lore rife with conflict, but acting on said conflict could get you slapped into an IR. I am very much in the belief the ship and the crew should live and die by their own sword, that they should be making decisions and actions in the round. IR's break that, anytime anyone utters the word "IR" IC in round my engagement or investment in the conflict or RP going on dies. On the chilling effect, lets say I've spent a few rounds in the past building a rivalry with another character and this round in the bar has been drinking and political arguments are mars, or Adhomai or whatever until it boils over into a bar fight. An organic, RP'ed out conflict. I'll already face IC consequence for it, security may arrest me, command may suspend me, may fine me or dock my pay whatever. There has been roleplay, conflict, and  a consequence of it goes off the rails

 

but I'm not going to do that, because if I get IR'ed by one of the people in the bar. suddenly I gotta attend an unfun interview process with my limited play time, and I need to wait for some unseen process to decide if I get to keep playing that character, or told if I wanna play that character I need to play a role I dont want to. A process I have no influence too and has no "game" to it. Player conflict or RP conflict is inherently disincentivized when an IR can suck you into an unfun vortex. it also undermines action in the round. Another character is bothering me, they're talking smack about the faction my character  supports, and called me out. I could retaliate, talk to the captain, raise a stink with the consular. all of these are in the roleplay and bring interest to the round, and IR does not

 

Further I do not need to be a party to the conflict to file an IR. I can file an IR if I see other characters getting into conflict with each other. So not only do I need to be concerned with the RP conflict im involved in, I need to be concerned any of the bystanders around me dont decide "eh, send them to the RP Gulag".

 

the VAST majority of IR's I read on the forum here I will firmly say could have been solved in round by the captain or a head of staff, and the remaining are either RP conflict that should have stayed in round, things not worthy of being a conflict at all, and very very rarely something that a poke by a moderator may have worked.

 

Your coworkers got in a verbal fight? Head of staff

Security officer and engineer are feuding over politics and one shoved the other? Tell the captain

Two solarians came to blows over the political situatin in mars over beers in the bar? let security handle it

 

all of these issues can be handled fully inround. CCIA adds nothing of value or story to any of these scenarios.

[KingOfThePing]

2 hours ago, N8-Toe said:

the VAST majority of IR's I read on the forum here I will firmly say could have been solved in round by the captain or a head of staff, and the remaining are either RP conflict that should have stayed in round, things not worthy of being a conflict at all, and very very rarely something that a poke by a moderator may have worked.

 

Your coworkers got in a verbal fight? Head of staff

Security officer and engineer are feuding over politics and one shoved the other? Tell the captain

Two solarians came to blows over the political situatin in mars over beers in the bar? let security handle it

How strange that most people dont seem to be able to do that, then

[Carver]

2 hours ago, N8-Toe said:

the VAST majority of IR's I read on the forum here I will firmly say could have been solved in round by the captain or a head of staff, and the remaining are either RP conflict that should have stayed in round, things not worthy of being a conflict at all, and very very rarely something that a poke by a moderator may have worked.

 

Your coworkers got in a verbal fight? Head of staff

Security officer and engineer are feuding over politics and one shoved the other? Tell the captain

Two solarians came to blows over the political situatin in mars over beers in the bar? let security handle it

 

all of these issues can be handled fully inround. CCIA adds nothing of value or story to any of these scenarios.

If they were handled in-round, then they wouldn’t be IR’d. IRs typically cover matters that couldn’t, or more rarely, wouldn’t be handled by Command and Security. If it’s a situation where you could have solved it in-round, then refer to the excerpt from IR rules below:

Quote

You are expected to try and find a resolution to situations in the round within the chain of command. You may seek further action on unresolved issues via an IR. Attach what investigation findings you can in the additional info section. Making no effort to resolve an issue may cause the incident report to be closed without investigation unless a very good reason is specified.

Then refer to the following section of the IR format:

Quote

Did you report it to a Head of Staff or a superior? If so, who? If not, why?: (Name, Job Title)
Actions taken: (Description of efforts made by the reporter, security, Heads to resolve this incident)

To put it simply, that which could have been solved in-round wasn’t due to any number of circumstances.

[N8-Toe]

that isn't how this works. you can IR if you disagree with the head of staffs ruling, you can IR if they make a ruling. you can IR without telling a head of staff. There is no rule against it and as the process is so opaque none of us know if these things affect it internally

1 hour ago, Carver said:

If they were handled in-round, then they wouldn’t be IR’d. IRs typically cover matters that couldn’t, or more rarely, wouldn’t be handled by Command and Security. If it’s a situation where you could have solved it in-round, then refer to the excerpt from IR rules below:

Then refer to the following section of the IR format:

To put it simply, that which could have been solved in-round wasn’t due to any number of circumstances.

like what? what could come up that can't be handled by the ships captain or security in any way

[Dreamix]

1 hour ago, N8-Toe said:

like what? what could come up that can't be handled by the ships captain or security in any way

Captain or security can give you a fine, or detain you, etc. But that "punishment" only lasts one round. You can join another round and do it again, get another fine or be detained again. There are no consequences that last more than until the end of round.

IRs are supposed to handle this kind of thing, and allow consequences that last more than one round. Captain or security do not have that power.

You can say it's a OOC issue at that point, and I'm not sure I personally agree, it's debatable and depends on the exact problem.

Edited November 23 by Dreamix

[Carver]

I’ll add to the above that on several occasions I’ve seen people dodge meaningful punishment by avoiding it until round-end where they may dodge a security charge entirely. Even whilst playing HoS I’ve had that issue occur, furthered by officers who simply didn’t care to act.

As it stands, there also isn’t really any significant punishment in regard to being charged by security. It’s a little note on your record that won’t mean much until someone review requests you (the close sibling of IRs), and to many people doesn’t matter because they don’t see it through a real corporate lens of how much that effects your character’s future in regard to employment opportunities. Only staff, whether administrative or CCIA (or rarely, lore) depending on the specific matter, can truly affect one’s character in any significant and lasting manner.

[Bear]

Alright so I've let this sit for about a week as well as reading the funny posts about CCIA in serious discussion and elsewhere. I'm going to address the main topics/themes as best I am able to, but I may not address everyone's individual points here. I will be direct, and it may come across as dismissive, but it is not a personal attack against anyone here.

 

First there is a common misconception about the point of an IR and being upset about losing control of player agency in the course of your story. First and foremost, the point of an IR is to help enforce the standards of the setting from the IC standpoint and expectation of play on the server. It is a form of moderation from the server's in character standpoint, not the out of character standpoint with rules. We try to encourage RP and alternative solutions beyond "you cannot play for a week" or "you're fired" but at the end of the day consequences are just that. Consequences. The IR is one of the CCIA's tools to enforce character accountability and IC standards. I understand people may not like this. But it is about the community's health, not one individual player groups' story.

 

Now why does this matter? Why can't command or the player of the character set their consequences? Frankly put it is to ensure there is some measure of consistency and that it is realistic for the setting and enforced by staff from selected teams. The general playerbase is not trusted with having enforceable consequences and never will be. If you wish to do so you may apply to be staff to either the Lore team, OOC moderation, or the CCIA.

 

Does this discourage canon conflict RP? It can. An example was listed about a bar fight already having stacked consequences. Typically speaking, once a charge is applied, we do not pursue it further unless it is a repeat offense of significance or the end of around occurred and charges/investigations were not able to happen. The team is not and never has been out to get people, we avoid double dipping. Unless the situation is exceptional, if it was charged in round (or realistically could have been, more than a few 'petty IRs' have been filtered this way) and is not a repeat situation, we likely close the IR. To be clear, we want this to be handled in round if at all possible. But it must be remembered that you are an employee at your workplace. Situations like this would cost you your job in any realistic setting. Again, actions have consequences.

 

Now where is all this going? Well, let's be real, IR's are not entirely fun processes', we know. They can be time consuming because we want it on the server. It's not fun to sit in a round and essentially recant your story of events and why. So why do we do it? Your perspective matters. Also, when you interview on the server your record of account is recorded and stored by the server. Discord is not reliable in this regard. Things can be edited or lost with time very easily for a staff complaint down the road. You have a chance to air your side of things and walk us through (as your character) the rationale that lead you to this point. These decisions can be incredibly minor to something as simple as, a charge was applied to something incredibly drastic such as (and quite rarely) character termination. Rushing these and not weighting things properly would end in poor results. Along with the time constraints people have brought up the issue with lying. As a reminder, you can lie to protect yourself. You cannot lie about others, but you can decline to answer. Why is this in place? Without referencing specific events, this rule was put in place to protect players from coordinated IC lies that could and would affect your character very poorly. It, like cameras, is a limitation of the gameplay setting. 

 

To address the comment about weaponized IR's. Could it be made by someone with the intent to 'get you'? Sure. But at the end of the day your character is either in breach of their contract/regulations or they are not. Petty IR's such as someone stole my sweetroll but I did not report it to security and here is a vague image of a text from them saying "ha ha suck it nerd" are going to be binned. The filer has no control over the IR once it is filed. It is then up to the relative staff team to pursue it or drop it.

 

I have never been against reworking the IR process, but this is a discussion that is several years old at this point with no viable alternative that continues to serve the purpose of the IR's function in a realistic manner.

 

One bit I did take away from this that was found to be an interesting concept was HR sit downs between disgruntled employees. I will say this now group interviews won't happen, they do not make sense. Along with this, in character intimidation due to friendships, fears, or other forms of ostracization as a repercussion are counterproductive to the point of the IR. That said, an additional conflict resolution session may be something that could be offered as an alternative to, or with, the standard punishments. I will discuss this with my team, and it will likely be an optional offering we may consider.

 

As for the matter of transparency, I will say, the IR process has been in the process of being transcribed to an easy to read breakdown for the wiki for some time before this discussion began. You can also DM me at any point with questions related to the CCIA. That said, our punishments are often situational, proportional, and discussed by the agents before final resolution. They are not easy to codify as no two situations are typically alike instead they follow previous precedents/examples and the spirit of the CCIA. I also want to say now the team's discussions/debates/ and what was considered or not considered will never be public, just like your ooc tickets are not either. The oversight for the CCIA agents (Myself, Admin liaisons, and finally the Headmin) are the ones who moderate the team's actions from the OOC standpoint. If you want to make sure about something after your IR is closed you can DM me or an admin liaison (currently Campin as well as the headmin Mel) with any concerns/questions. I want everyone to remember you have 3 avenues to pursue if you do not agree or like your outcome. First and foremost is a staff complaint. Myself and the headmin will look at the records and see if all the steps were taken by the agent, if all appropriate parties were interviewed, and if the outcome is logical. The Headmin/Liaison reviewing this has the only/final say on the outcome of the ruling. You do not need to feel bad about staff complaining an IR, if you think it was not handled well, I actively encourage you to.

 

The other two are appeals and requests for clemency. Clemency has a very low bar for acceptance. If your character is willing to admit they did wrong, apologize, and/or hold themselves accountable it is more than likely we will reduce your IC punishment. We are here to play a game. If being reassigned to janitorial is that hard on you, we get it. Understand repeat offenses and CCIA engagements (For the same character, not the player) may reduce your chances here. Next is appeals. You can appeal the decision and your logic as to why. A new agent or myself will take a look at it and review to either agree with or overturn the previous decision. This is essentially an IC staff complaint on the decision. I have the final say on appeals/clemency IC.

 

With all of this said. I do not see any foreseeable or sensible changes to the IR structure save for the potential addition of group hash out sessions as part of the resolutions. I thank everyone for their feedback regardless, I know I didn't get to every point raised but I feel the spirit of the suggestion has been addressed, I understand this is not to everyone's liking but my DM's are always open for further dialogue.

What that in mind I am -1'ing/Voting for Dismissal an IR rework at this time.

[N8-Toe]

On 20/11/2024 at 09:17, Powder Miner said:

At the very least, if Carver is right and IRs really are a mechanism to curate the desired level of server believability, it really needs to be treated like it. If IRs are being promoted as a natural outcome for IC conflict, treated by many of the people filing and receiving IRs as a natural outcome for IC conflict, and even treated at least partially by CCIA as a natural outcome for conflict, then actually being a punitive mechanism means that a pipeline is created funneling natural and even beneficial conflict RP directly into a punishment mechanism. I really doubt that this is actually what ANYONE has in mind, especially given that IRs are a lot more onerous than quite a few more unambiguous forms of punishment. Would you rather receive an OOC note which is quick and directly communicative or an IC reprimand which is lengthy, takes a lot of effort, and is ambiguous about whether or not it’s even supposed to be a punishment?

I'm going to quote this here. very specifically "A pipeline is created funneling natural and even beneficial conflict RP directly into a punishment mechanism"

 

@Bear your response and defense of the current IR process is to me lacking. and its lacking because of the above. it is a defense of a pipeline to punishment for roleplaying. The server moderators and game admins already enforce standards of behavior, and play. Other characters in game may also enforce this in the manner of punishment or suspension. Why do we need another layer of enforcement on the player. You even acknowledge this may be harming organic conflict RP. and I just winna ask, why am I here? why am I playing SS13 here on aurora. Its for the lore, the conflict, the stakes, the world. all of these things' setup RP conflict. Our amazing lore has opposing factions and questions, our events and arcs are setup on these lore conflicts. Yet then we have a system that punishes the player for possibly partaking in this and building off it. I do not come here to RP out being a 9 to 5 corporate worker who only does things I would do IRL. We want believable and grounded characters, but we also need some room for drama here. some room for conflict. And right here we are funneling that RP to punishment. and that punishment is OOC

 

You do not deny this. You call CCIA and IR's a way to enforce accountability and standards. well what are these standards? you mention these things about wanting things to be handled in round, and how that affects the process. but.. where is this written? Where on the wiki can I go and see the standards my IR is judged against, and where on the wiki can I go and see the rubric, or see the punishments, or go on the wiki and learn anything? I can't. Its not there. The game rules page details rules on creating and RP'ing a character. it does not mention CCIA. There is a lack of transparency, and I dislike how your response is essentially "yeah its opaque and that's not changing"

 

On 20/11/2024 at 04:53, Dreamix said:

There's no insight into how the CCIAA have made their decisions, what arguments they have considered, who they interviewed, if they were biased towards or against someone, if they followed the IR process or rules (I don't think that's public either). The average player has no way to know any of that, and the outcomes may as well be decided by dice rolls. I know they're not just rolling dice and I trust they're doing their jobs properly, but it's the opposite to how admin/moderation staff work, and I put much more trust in admins/mods here.

 to quote another great comment here. There's no information a new player can even find on how CCIA makes decisions or what can even be decided. its a secret court with unknown rules and standards. if anything needs to change, its that. I know the standards the moderators judge me against, its on the server rules page. I can click a button in game at any time and see them. 

[Fluffy]

I don't think your response addresses any of the points that were made, at least not any of the point that seems shared by the other replies I see.

 

I do not want to make a super long post detailing how your answer doesn't address them, I think I can briefly summarize it as: It is addressing points noone made, you point out things about believability, you point things about recurse, you point out accountability of characters and IC standards, and so on. None of this addresses the point. This is a game we play to have fun, and none of this is OOCly fun. You point out all those things and others as unchanging features of reality, while they are just present because we want them, and if we have to choose between having more fun and keeping them, we can just aswell choose to have more fun. Which is what multiple people have pointed out in various aspect to be the issue here: It isn't fun, it's not entertaining, it fails to do the thing you want from a game: entertain.

It doesn't matter if you think it helps enforcing the standards of the setting, even granting it actually does and we actually want them to be exactly like this, none of that addresses the point that this is an unfun experience, and according to the vast majority of those who replied so far, a net negative of the server as a whole, and as we play to be entertained and have fun, this is the exact opposite of what you want things to be there for.

If I make mining require to clean up the rocks with a brush for 1 hour a shift to get gold, it doesn't matter that it is realistic, it doesn't matter that it helps enforce the standards of the setting of corporate dystopia, none of that solves that it would be a frustrating, unfun experience we'd be better off without, and I'd have to either find a way to make it fun or remove it. This, is what is being asked for in the end, to make it fun; if not only it's unfun in itself, but it also removes fun from other things, it's inexcusable to keep it in the game, on an OOC level.

 

The universe, the lore, the mechanics, the server, modmins, CCIA and whatever else exists because we want to play a game and have fun / be entertained in doing so. We do not exist for the purpose of representing the Auroraverse, the Auroraverse exists to entertain the players (players here includes anyone who plays including staff, I do not mean only the non-staff). And CCIA is not only failing at that, but making other things worse at doing this, as was indicated by multiple people.

[Sniblet]

I have no stake here. I’ve never interacted with CCIA. I don’t play Aurora for nonantag conflict. I barely play Aurora now, perhaps relatedly.

I just like one of the points shared by N8-Toe and Fluffy a lot and I want to repeat it.

”…and that’s not changing.”

”…all those things and others as just unchanging features of reality.”

 

Aurora is annoyingly resistant to change, at all levels. Before declaring that something must be as it is, ask and carefully answer why. There are no laws of nature at play here, and anything can change if we want it.

Is Aurora the best it can be? What’s wrong with it? How can we address what people don’t like? Is the correct answer usually “don’t address them, they’re wrong?” Watch yourself. Wrong how?

What tradeoffs are we making in Aurora’s current structure? What do they cost us? Are all of these tradeoffs necessary, even the old ones from a different time? How can we find out?

 

I mostly gave up on Aurora in favor of FFXIV roleplaying. The rules are virtually unenforceable, are usually about seven points long (don’t be mean, don’t be bigoted, weapons policy, erp policy, take fights outside, separate OOC from IC, literally have fun), vary by location, and cease to exist if you make your own informal group and play in private. The system functions beautifully. I have never been griefed. It’s been a year.

Aurora’s rules have dropdowns. People complain constantly. Is this inevitable, unchangeable, or is there maybe a cause? Aurora has mechanical PvP… does that account for literally all of the difference?

 

I’ve written out my issues before; there they are again. Let go of some of the structure, please. The setting will be fine if people just like it enough to fit themselves into it voluntarily. Likewise the tone. These are ifs, of course; but if people turn out not to like something, is it not the best possible outcome to have it then change organically to match what is wanted?

What are we protecting against? What behaviors are CCIA taking down, specifically, and do they have to do it in the way that they do? Do CCIA have to get people for fighting if fighting is fun, and someone else can handle it better when handling it is fun? Is CCIA, at all junctures - all junctures - asking how they can be complicit in the most fun? Are they, at some points, following procedures and realism and tone-law that are assumed to create fun? Are these sound for this purpose in all situations?

If not, there is room for improvement, and that means change. Policy, mindset, rank structure - whatever, I’ve all but left Aurora. But I still play a bit, and I want you all to have a lot of fun. If people aren’t having a lot of fun, at least be curious about why and what can be done. It’s not as if they’re just trolling the forum.

Edited November 25 by Sniblet

[Fyni]

I personally think the IR/CCIA is an excellent part of Aurora. It all but enables the type of play that people are complaining it stifles - by allowing questionable character and actions that other HRP servers I have played on in the past would have just outright not allowed by admin action. Aurora has interpersonal conflict on a none antagonistic level which I havn't seen across multiple servers, enabled by allowing characters to not always fit the (let's be honest, fairly low) IC standard expected of working on the flagship. The CCIA / IRs remain as a way to know there is accountbility in character - there are numerous characters I know who are on the verge of breaking the illusion the Horizon has, but the exsistance of the accountbility helps reinforce it and allow these characters to exsist. I hope I don't have to name these characters but I think people know exactly who they are.

If the problem with the CCIA is it makes some characters difficult to play, the problem is with the setting, not the CCIA. But the Horizon is a workspace, and if things do escalate beyond (IC) rules then there does need to be some (again, IC) accountability, otherwise the whole illusion breaks.

However I don't think it's perfect. I do think there should be more that effects the day to day rounds, and this comes to alternative punishments. Demotions can be unfun (forcing you to play a job you perhaps don't like), fines are meaningless beyond just been able to mention them and "retraining" or whatever takes a character away for a short time (though personally as someone who plays multiple characters regually I'm not too fussed by this). I think a good alternative punishment would be merely to mark records of effected characters with an "Under watch" "on notice" etc. on their records which command and security can see (and perhaps even alert command more directly when such a character comes up). This could allow command, security and the effected player to interact in an intresting way which is otherwise absent from the CCIA systems ("I see your already on notice, don't make a same mistake!" or "That mark is bad, let us have a chat about how we can improve to make sure we get you through this", depending on the chracter ofc.)

I would also like it to be semi transparent OOC - hiding punishments of these I think is a bit silly since they are IC actions, and a quick report on why (one paragraph tops) a decision was made would be helpful. I also think the OOC restriction on lying is crazy considering the whole point of the CCIA is to be an IC investigation. Make it clear IC that if caught in a lie, there is some sort of punioshment (no matter how small) then let characters say what they say. Not all investigations will conclude successfully perhaps once this is introduced, but again this is an IC system, and sadly in real life that often is the end result.