2 dismissals Make IPCs exempt from uniform regulations

[Comet Blaze]

More specifically, allow them ignore the dress code in favour of having a bare chassis. This shouldn't exempt them from all regulations, for instance, IPCs should still be wearing gloves and an apron for surgery and security IPCs should still need to be clearly identifiable as members of security and wear their corporation's colours, either painted on their frame directly or through accessories, but they wouldn't have the necessity to wear non-slip shoes or any other articles of clothing.

I don't believe this to be unreasonable, as IPCs are already designed with practicality in mind so something like non-slip shoes would be redundant as they were already made to function without those. Asides from that, IPCs also aren't beholden to the laws of decency, being already incapable of being charged with indecent exposure as they obviously don't have anything to expose.

I think this would be an interesting avenue for the people interested in portraying more robotic IPCs to highlight the differences between them and a regular crewmember in a very clear and obvious manner.

And naturally this wouldn't apply to shells.

[Bear]

I'm afraid right now I have no interest in adjusting the uniform regulations which are already highly permissive for a workplace environment. It would be a bad look from the corporate side of things. IPCs will be required to wear at minimum, a shirt and some version of shorts/pants.

Vote for dismissal.

[HanSolo1519]

This would be great, having bare-metal robots really nails home the "We do not see you as a person, and only partially a sentient being."

This would also create a great division between the industrial, potentially exclusionist-leaning Baselines and G1s, and the ones who opt to wear clothes to fit in better, being viewed akin to something like a scab, or a pick-me.

I love this and hope we add this.

[pocheto]

Just to ask: If this gets rejected, shouldnt the gear harness be removed from ipcs, because they have it at the moment as an option

[Sniblet]

The roleplay anarchist is here. Everyone, please stand for another passionate argument for the dissolution of the rules.

 

“Uniform standards are already permissive”

Yes. Yes with the chad face. Unrelatedly, OP is saying they ought be more permissive.

 

”It would be a bad look for corporate”

No. No with the chad face. What does this mean? Honestly, what are you talking about?

Most fictional and real steel-exterior robots don’t wear clothes except as a joke. Do we feel bad about this? Does this fact reflect badly on Boston Dynamics or the Confederacy of Independent Systems? Would it if the robot had a job? If we in the real world started putting robots to work, would they have to follow the same workplace dress code as the people, or wouldn't you just like, apply paint and decals as necessary? If they start acting more like humans, does that really change anything?

 

”I’m not interested in rewriting the policy right now”

OK. If you don’t feel like typing, let someone else do it. I volunteer. I’m sure you could find others, too.

Edited Sunday at 06:42 by Sniblet

[FlamingLily]

Simply put, cyborgs do not wear clothes. Why would they need to? They don't need to fit in, they don't have bits, there's no point to it.

 

Why would this be any different for NON-SHELL IPC? Why would they NEED a uniform? If anything, maybe the uniform policy itself might still apply, but "Indecent exposure" wouldn't, leaving grounds for command staff to dictate whether an IPC should wear their uniform or not

[Triogenix]

This isn't something the IPC team is interested in either.

 

Voting for Dismissal.

[greenjoe]

3 hours ago, Triogenix said:

This isn't something the IPC team is interested in either.

Could I ask why the ipc lore team isn't interested?

[Shimmer]

On 26/01/2025 at 08:30, FlamingLily said:

Why would this be any different for NON-SHELL IPC? Why would they NEED a uniform? If anything, maybe the uniform policy itself might still apply, but "Indecent exposure" wouldn't, leaving grounds for command staff to dictate whether an IPC should wear their uniform or not

The current big issue I would see is departmental distinction.

 

People in engineering still look like engineers, people in medical still look like doctors and medics, people in security still look like cops and mercs.

 

You lose this visual aspect when you eschew a uniform or some sort of distinguishing clothing. For this proposal to make sense (at least to me) it'd have to come with a very generous sprite package to address that.

At the very minimum thats what, 5-6 sprites per department, but ideally 5 per department per corporation; its a lot of work.

[Sniblet]

11 hours ago, Shimmer said:

People in engineering still look like engineers, people in medical still look like doctors and medics, people in security still look like cops and mercs.

If they decide to wear the uniform. A machinist in black is indistinguishable from an engineer in black until you look at the ID.  A pharmacist in a red qipao doesn’t look like anything.  If you see a vaurca in vaurca clothes, you have to guess by the color they’ve chosen for their clothes (see: painted chassis - you don’t need to add new sprites, this functionality already exists, what are you talking about), their gear belt if applicable, and their satchel or tunnel cloak - or better yet, examine them. See also: any racial clothing and most loadout clothing. Golden Deep outfits. I recall the team being interested enough in them.

Brother, you just examine them and then remember their face. We all do it. If you’re on Aurora’s forums, you already know what the woman in the red qipao does at a glance, or the cheery woman in the brown and red outfit, or the sniffing tajaran in unaltered laborer’s clothes, or the Athvur bulwark in plaid, or any and all captains, XOs, or RDs whom you’ve seen more than once. You know what Ren Hartfort really does, even though he dresses as a physician. Usually, you still have to check whether or not they’re on-duty.

This is not creating a new problem, only adding new, interesting, wholly reasonable dimensions to an existing one.

A minor one, necessary for an existing positive tradeoff at that - have you ever seen these mixups be anything but a slight, temporary embarrassment?

not interested. Man, I just try to think through these things as if being right matters.

Edited 17 hours ago by Sniblet

[Fluffy]

For what it's worth, I don't think it add much if any value as an option, not to mention the ever-looming threat of shell waifus befalling upon us

Either way, with Bear vote for dismissal, which is the head of CCIA, this suggestion might aswell be dead already

[Sniblet]

1 hour ago, Fluffy said:

For what it's worth, I don't think it add much if any value as an option, not to mention the ever-looming threat of shell waifus befalling upon us

Either way, with Bear vote for dismissal, which is the head of CCIA, this suggestion might aswell be dead already

“If it makes you feel any better, what you came here to discuss doesn’t matter to you or anyone, you’re arguing for something that you’ve been explicitly interested in avoiding, and you never had any hope of pushing this through.”

I’m salting a fair amount and I’ll stop from here, but please listen to yourself.

Edited yesterday at 17:58 by Sniblet

[FlamingLily]

6 hours ago, Fluffy said:

not to mention the ever-looming threat of shell waifus befalling upon us

This means absolutely nothing.

 

7 hours ago, Shimmer said:

The current big issue I would see is departmental distinction.

While I agree that there would be less distinction, I think Sniblet is right in that we already don't really have a lot of it anyway, outside of security and now paramedics (for whom IPC would still follow the current regulations). At the end of the day, uniforms aren't really a thing outside those two roles, even engineers can get away with a fair bit (within reason), so I really don't think this really makes it worse overall. Plus, as has been said, there's a fair amount of chassis customization you can do to make up for the lack of clothing.