Command & Security Relationship

[Eliot Clef]

Captain's are permitted to pardon people who were brigged unjustly. That's literally stopping a bad brigging in process. You don't just spank sec after the fact.

The Captain cannot exceed official powers when "exceeding official powers" is "giving an order security doesn't like". The captain has the official power to override decisions made by any lower Head. That's within his authority. Instead of contacting Internal Affairs or Central Command to contest this, you proceeded to engage in mutiny. Arresting the highest authority on the station is generally something you need clearance for unless they're being totally insane and violent, if only because they are loyalty implanted.

Of course the behaviour of going to lethals was totally dumb and makes it really hard to justify defending him.

 

I'm bringing this over here from a Player Complaint thread, because I feel like it seriously warrants inquiry and discussion as to intent of gameplay, and I don't really want that thread to be completely dominated by this discussion.

Is the Captain meant to be utterly beyond reproach to the point where he cannot be arrested under most circumstances without contacting Central Command? The way Corporate Regulations are written, particularly

 

Exceeding Official Powers

To act beyond what is allowed by the Chain of Command.

This is for any head of staff who abuses the power given to them, such as the Head of Personnel acting like a security officer in a non-emergency, the captain acting as if he is above the law, etc. Heads of Staff trying to order a different department or ignoring the captain also comes under this. Also covers anyone illegally promoting themselves, such as with a stolen ID.

15 minutes

Demotion. Up to 30 minutes in brig.

 

Tells me, "Yes, the Captain can overstep his boundaries and get arrested. No, the Captain is not allowed to do absolutely anything he pleases." However, it appears that Jackboot at least is of the opinion that this charge cannot or should not be applied to the Captain by definition.

So, I want a dialogue opened. How's this supposed to be? How should the Security-Captain relationship work?

To a lesser extent, how should the Security-Command relationship work overall? What is Staff's official stance on this?

[Guest]

In general, command is charged with the duty of managing day-to-day operations without incident. Security's job is to ensure day-to-day standard operation is facilitated, with little to no incident. They're to carry out orders from command staff when appropriate.

What security is not allowed to do is to take orders from someone who is clearly skipping over procedure without justification or any real benefit.

[Susan]

Pardons are only legitimate if they come from a NanoTrasen higher-up (that is, someone who ranks above the Captain). Despite his high ranking, the Captain cannot spit in the face of Corporate Regulations, and any attempts to do so are infractions.

 

Case closed.

[jackfractal]

I think 'The Captain acting as if he is above the law' refers to the Captain committing crimes. Like, killing people and saying 'You can't arrest me! I'm the Captain!'

That's not what happened in the example situation. The Captain released someone that most of security didn't think should be released.

From the Captain's perspective, it appears as though they believed they were correcting an error that security made in brigging that person. They have the authority to do that. If security makes a mistake, the Captain can overrule them, just like if Engineering or Medical makes a mistake they can overrule them.

If the CMO is providing inaccurate treatment and that is harming patients, then you can dang well believe the Captain can order the CMO to correct their treatment.

What if they ordered Engineers sealing a breach to stop what they're doing and rescue the people trapped in breached areas?

Would you arrest them for doing either of those things?

No, of course not, because that would be silly.

It's the same situation regarding an illegally incarcerated prisoner.

It's possible that the Captain, in this case, was in error, and that the judgement call they made was incorrect or made with incomplete information. Even if that were so, the correct thing for security to do is still not to arrest the Captain. There are clear alternatives. The Duty Officers and Internal Affairs exist to handle precisely this sort of situation. If the situation gets truly untenable then the Security Officers who feel particularly strongly about it could resign in protest.

If the Captain is a threat to the station themselves then they are exceeding official powers by telling security to ignore their egregious lawbreaking. They are not overstepping themselves by disagreeing with security's interpretation of a situation.

A security officer might see a borderline unstable person disrupting medical and making dangerous threats, while another person might see a stressed and mentally ill person who is not getting the treatment they need. If that other person is almost anyone else on the station then the Officer in question can tell them to go stuff it and proceed with their interpretation. However, if that other person is the Captain, then they get to decide what happens. The security officer can try to persuade the Captain of the rightness of their interpretation, and if they fail then they can appeal the decision through the appropriate channels, but they don't get to force the issue without breaking the law.

That's how hierarchies work.

Nobody is expected to be happy about it, but in strict hierarchies like the one on the station, the guy above you is the one who's interpretation of the situation is correct, and the Captain is above Security. They are not a site manager to be swept aside the second that any situation occurs outside of the normal running of the station, they are the leader.

The situation in the complaint was complicated by what appears to be a lot of miscommunication on both sides, but what security did was mutiny.

 

Pardons are only legitimate if they come from a NanoTrasen higher-up (that is, someone who ranks above the Captain). Despite his high ranking, the Captain cannot spit in the face of Corporate Regulations, and any attempts to do so are infractions.

 

Case closed.

 

That's only if it were a pardon. A pardon is 'you did the crime, but you are forgiven the punishment'.

In the situation in the complaint, that wasn't what was happening. The Captain was attempting to reverse what they appear to have considered an inaccurate, invalid, or non-existent charge.

To take the situation to the logical extreme. If someone brigs another person for say... 45 minutes for no reason at all, is it an illegal pardon if the Captain releases them? Do you arrest the Captain for doing that?

No, of course not, because the actions of the security officer were clearly wrong and against procedure.

Same thing here. The Captain appears to have perceived a wrongdoing, a breach in proper procedure, on the part of security and attempted to correct it. They shouldn't have done that based on the logs (they missed several attempts to explain why the prisoner was there, so I'm guessing the player was distracted), but that was what they appear to have believed while they were releasing the prisoner.

In that case, no spitting in the face of Corporate Regulations was done, and the actions of security in attempting to arrest the Captain were illegal.

It should also be pointed out that the quoted paragraph from the wiki is a direct Baystation transplant. Bay doesn't whitelist their Captains, so they get a lot more griefers in that role than Aurora does. That paragraph is there to prevent greytiding Captains from running amok, which is, I'm guessing, why it's worded so strongly.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Guest

[Susan]

The Captain cannot pardon under any circumstances. Releasing someone who is improperly brigged is not a pardon - if the Captain believed (note I said 'the Captain believed', simply because he perceives something as being wrong does not actually make it wrong) that security err'd, he had tools at his command to fix this. IAA and faxes. What you are proposing is a black and white situation, that being Urist McGreyshirt being brigged for 45 minutes because Urist McBlueshirt is buttmad. What actually occurred is anything but.

Simply because he viewed the brigging as unjust does not give him the authority to pardon the criminal. That is his opinion. And so yes, he was exceeding official powers, and deserved to be arrested.

[jackfractal]

I'm guessing that people will split on this issue based on whether they believe that the Captain is allowed to overrule their subordinates interpretation of a given situation without exceeding their authority.

I think they should, and if that's allowed then we have to look at the situation like this:

From the perspective of the Captain (whose perspective is the one that matters, as they are in charge) it was not a pardon, it was correcting an error.

Who gets to decide if it was an error or a pardon? The Captain does.

[Guest]

Perspective doesn't matter if they're wrong.

[Eliot Clef]

I'm guessing that people will split on this issue based on whether they believe that the Captain is allowed to overrule their subordinates interpretation of a given situation without exceeding their authority.

I think they should, and if that's allowed then we have to look at the situation like this:

From the perspective of the Captain (whose perspective is the one that matters, as they are in charge) it was not a pardon, it was correcting an error.

Who gets to decide if it was an error or a pardon? The Captain does.

 

In this specific case the person who was arrested (Nursie/Phoebe Essel) said to me in deadchat earlier (unless I gravely misunderstood our conversation) that she was legitimately detained with a timer of 11 minutes, which was presumably cancelled around the two minute mark leading to this overall incident.

The rules-as-written specifically forbid the Captain from doing something like this, at least without a good justification, and I think the rules-as-written should stay this way. (I am however a regular Security player and would prefer a minimum of rule-sanctioned behavior that permits people to deliberately run interference against Security except when absolutely necessary.)

[jackfractal]

@Eliot.

You're all approaching this from the perspective that the consensus interpretation of the situation by security was the objectively correct one. While I'm not really interested in debating the relative correctness of either interpretation of the situation, because it was a confusing mess, I am debating the idea that, legally speaking, security's consensus opinion matters at all in the presence of a higher authority.

It shouldn't. The person whose opinion on the situation matters is that of the higher authority. In this case, the Captain's.

You're right, the rules forbid the Captain from pardoning a crime, but from the perspective of the Captain that's not what they were doing. They were releasing someone who had been unjustly detained.

Security disagreed, but that's irrelevant because, again, the person whose opinion matters in this situation, is not a Security Officer.

It's the Captain.

 

Perspective doesn't matter if they're wrong.

 

It does if they're your boss.

If we're equals looking at an issue and I think you're approach is wrong, and you think my approach is wrong, then those are simply two perspectives on a particular issue.

This changes if we're part of an organization. If we're looking at the same issue and have the same opinions but you're in charge, our organization will go with with your perspective on the issue because what you say goes.

If you're the Captain and you say that someone was incorrectly incarcerated, and I'm a Security Officer and I think I did my job correctly, the prisoner is going to get released because you're the one in charge.

I don't particularly like hierarchies like that, but that's how they work.

If I decide that I'm going to violently oppose your actions because I disagree with your perspective, I'm committing mutiny.

If the Captain cannot overrule Security's interpretation of a situation without violating the law, then they are not, by definition, in charge. They are a puppet, or a figurehead, and the Security department are the ones who really have the authority.

[Susan]

The Captain's perspective is irrelevant if the arrest was in the bounds of the law. He ignored explanations. He chose to break the law.

If I wanted to brig an assistant for every charge he committed no matter how petty, I would be well within my rights to do it, and no matter how unfair or unjust the captain thinks it is, he has no authority to pardon them.

While few are actually this petty about small crimes, if they violated a regulation and were sentenced properly for it -which they were, the captain chose to remain ignorant of the circumstances, and ignorance is no excuse- he has no authority to pardon them.

Corporate regs are set by the captain's boss' boss' boss' boss. Regs > Him.

[jackfractal]

The Captain's perspective is irrelevant if the arrest was in the bounds of the law.

 

It was only within the bounds of the law according to the Security consensus opinion. An opinion that I personally share, but is not some kind of axiomatic fact, obvious to all.

The Captain's opinion at the time was that it was not a legal detainment. Now that opinion was formed with incomplete or inaccurate information, but it was his opinion (unless we want to get into bad faith arguments which I'd rather not).

The Captain's opinion is the one that matters if he's in charge.

Unless it doesn't. Unless we're saying that the consensus opinion of a particular department, about a specific issue, has legal authority over the Captain.

If that's the case, fine, but the Captain, in a situation where that is the law, is not in charge. They're a puppet of a shifting consensus.

It would mean that the Captain would not have the authority to, for example, oppose the CMO injecting liquefied donk pockets into people exposed to a virus, provided that their department supported them.

Nor would the Captain have the legal authority to disallow dangerous modifications to the station provided that the Engineering team was fully committed to them, or to prevent Science from bringing potentially lethal artifacts onto the station from xenoachaeology if enough of the Science team thought it was a good idea.

Either the Captain has the authority to decide what happens regardless of the protests, however justified, of a person or a department, or they don't.

I think they should, if only because I think it's more interesting.

With the benefits of hindsight, and accounting for the fact that the Captain entered the situation with the opinions that they appear to have held, I believe that the right way to handle the example situation was this:

 

2. The Captain comes in and frees the prisoner, believing them to be unlawfully detained.
4. Security isn't happy, but the prisoner is freed from their cell and released from security custody by order of the Captain.
   
6. The Head of Security gets the Captains attention, probably in one of their offices, and makes a formal protest.
   
8. The Head of Security supplies evidence of the rightfulness of their case.
   
10. Based on the new evidence, the Captains opinion changes to match that of the Security Consensus.
    
12. The Captain rescinds the release order based on new evidence.
    
14. The prisoner is arrested again and serves the rest of their time.
    
16. The Captain and the Head of Security apologize for the miscommunication and agree to try to work on their communication skills in the future.
    
18. Then they fight to the death

 

The important bit is the fifth point. How do you get to do what you want when you have a boss? You convince your boss that your opinion is the correct one.

You don't stage a coup.

Which is what they did. The Captain's opinion disagreed with that of the Security Department so they removed him from power. It doesn't matter if their opinion was 'correct'. It doesn't matter if the letter of the law was followed to a t. What matters is that he disagreed with them, and he had power over them, so rather than changing his mind or obeying the chain of command, they staged a coup and removed him from power.

It doesn't matter that he was wrong. If they were legally justified in doing what they did, the Captain never had any power in the first place.

[Guest]

Step 1 should've never happened in the first place. There is no excuse for the captain sticking their dick in places they didn't even join in for

The captain is a station administrator, not the LAW

[jackfractal]

Step 1 should've never happened in the first place. There is no excuse for the captain sticking their dick in places they didn't even join in for

The captain is a station administrator, not the LAW

 

While I don't think anyone would say that the Captain in question should have gone into that situation with as little information as they appear to have done, I think you may have an inaccurate perspective on how the role of the Captain is intended to work.

They are quite a bit more then the station administrator. As the very first sentence of the Aurora wiki description puts it is:

 

The Captain is in charge of the station and everyone on it.

 

So the player in question did join as the Captain because they wanted to be involved in Security.

And Medical.

And Science.

And Engineering.

And Cargo.

And everything else.

Because they're the boss.

Who outranks the Chief of Engineering when it comes to decisions about the station? The Captain.

Who is still in charge of medical policy, even in a medical emergency? The Captain.

Who is the highest ranked member of security? The Captain.

To quote the wiki again (and this is pulled from Bay too, where they can have Greytide Captains):

 

The Captain has the final say on almost every matter on the station.

 

While you may not like it when Captain's interfere with what you're doing, they are allowed to do it, because they are in charge.

Or at least, they're supposed to be.

[Jakers457]

The Captain is the highest authority in the station. He may not make arrests, give sentences unless needed or directly order Security. But he makes the executive decision, and if he feels one of his crew then he may make the decision to overrule that sentence if they deem the situation was handled poorly or against SoP. Obviously there are better ways to go about it but sadly security doesn't run the station. They do not have the freedom to be above policy themselves. The Captain's purpose on the station is to be the highest authority and decisions made by said captain will make them the only ones liable if shit goes tits up.

I mean, what do you think the Captain is there for? In truth he's more of the Commander on the station. If you have issues with his conduct that is within the legal bounds, you get the appropriate people involved. Not commence a shitcurity coup because you not like?

[Guest]

If I wanted to brig an assistant for every charge he committed no matter how petty, I would be well within my rights to do it, and no matter how unfair or unjust the captain thinks it is, he has no authority to pardon them.

Okay, first off. The corporate regulations you quote from is not the holy rulebook of all law, in fact it is pretty outdated as, for example, community has outright agreed that 'insulting an officer' is a bogus charge. So, there is no really point in quoting from it as community consensus is actually worth more than regulations that were made for another server. Officers actually pardon people when they 'let them off with a warning', which is something that officers can do and have been doing for a while now.

Second, if the captain thinks that charges someone has been brigged for are not unjust, but outright incorrect, they are actually obligated to fix the issue. Meaning, if the said assistant gets Infiltration for hopping over the bar, that means he's gonna get his charge lowered and whoever approved the charge is getting fired. This is not an issue of hurr durr, this gurl doesn't deserve this and that charge, it's an issue of you have no sufficient evidence to give this man terrorism.

Which ties into the third point: Chain of command

Exceeding Official Powers

To act beyond what is allowed by the Chain of Command.

This is for any head of staff who abuses the power given to them, such as the Head of Personnel acting like a security officer in a non-emergency, the captain acting as if he is above the law, etc. Heads of Staff trying to order a different department or ignoring the captain also comes under this. Also covers anyone illegally promoting themselves, such as with a stolen ID.

15 minutes

Demotion. Up to 30 minutes in brig.

 

Tells me, "Yes, the Captain can overstep his boundaries and get arrested. No, the Captain is not allowed to do absolutely anything he pleases." However, it appears that Jackboot at least is of the opinion that this charge cannot or should not be applied to the Captain by definition.

The thing about sending a fax that Sue said, well, it goes the other way. Others need to contact CentComm to overthrow Captain's decision because you need high ups to overthrow the Captain. If you think captain is breaking the aforementioned regulation, you do not detain them and put them out of command, you contact CentComm.

This obviously needs to be clarified: That is mutany, it doesn't matter how justified it is. You're de facto mutineer until CentComm actually tells you to remove Captain from command.

Honestly Sue, for someone so versed in american law or whatnot, you sure don't understand the concept at which Chain of Command works.

With that said, I have no idea what incident you are speaking about, but, if the Captain released someone without giving the proper reasoning, you should've contacted CentComm or wrote a complaint.

[keinto]

I'm very in the middle of this. On one hand, if the Captain gets detained for Exceeding Official Powers, then he is still the Captain. It doesn't say to remove them from command, does it? He may not be able to walk around, but unless Security are dicks and take away his headset and PDA, he can still be in command of other situations, just not the one he was detained for.

On the other hand, it's hypocritical from Security to take action so quickly and arrogantly as the Captain, instead of doing what they have told numerous detainees in the past, which is something among the lines of, "If you don't like it, wait until we get to CentComm make an incident report."

[Guest]

To demote a captain is a decision up to command staff to make unanimously, but that was never the issue. After their sentence for EOP is done and over with, they can still continue to be the captain. They just need to understand that the rules apply to them as well and that procedure is a pretty big deal.

[Guest]

It leaves who is to determine what actual Breach of Official Power is, considering Captain's authority is limited by only few vague factors. Loyalty to the company is assured, though, so you can assume that whatever they do, is they think they do to the best interest of NT. If this rule is breached, it's an OOC issue and needs an admin intervention, not security.

[Guest]

I'm amused, so I'll just go out on a limb and say you were being ironic with the personal attacks comment.

 

1138, you used to always play HoS/Captain because you like being in charge.

Now, you can't be a HoS/Captain anymore, but you still wanna be in charge.

So, you've made this odd new "The warden is the greatest head" ruleset which allows you to arrest Captains, Heads and anyone ranked above your character whenever they refuse to aknowledge your character's (now non-existent) authority over them so you can remain the guy in charge of everything.

 

I'm sorry, how is this relevant? In addition, why is it that I think you're implying that heads of staff shouldn't be held to the same, if not higher, standards that everyone else is expected to follow? Lemme know if I'm wrong here.

Command staff is not actually that hard once you realize the modus operandi of the more appraised heads of staff approach issues is like this: Avoid failing catastrophically. You don't need to win, you just need to not suck horridly at your job. Hell, that applies to any position of responsibility. Don't act dumb, to quote the great Houston.

And it's not 'rules lawyering,' when you're very clearly ignoring the consequences of a potential course of action without stopping to think for a moment, you're going to get whapped by fate and circumstance.

Security is not perfect, as it is a job that has ridiculously high expectations that it demands from players. And everyone has their own interpretation as to how security is to be run. I bow to your greater wisdom if you manage to cook up any idealistic molding you want security to adhere to.

Fact of the matter is, security in general is shitty on both sides of the same coin.

[Jamini]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Security are the only force without any real oversight on the station. They don't answer to IAA, they don't answer to CC, and they don't answer to the Captain.

Until security bans start getting handed out like candy for poor sec play, I don't honestly see that changing either.

 

Security is not perfect, as it is a job that has ridiculously high expectations that it demands from players. And everyone has their own interpretation as to how security is to be run. I bow to your greater wisdom if you manage to cook up any idealistic molding you want security to adhere to.

 

Ooh, ooh, me! I've got it.

1. Respect the law

-At all times, attempt to follow regulations as set in corporate regulations. If you see clear violations of such, detain the person doing so regardless of role. If you see a borderline case, report it to your direct superiors and wait for approval. (Direct superiors being the HoS, Cap, and DOs. DO trumps all, Cap orders trump HoS.)

-Do not get involved in issues that are not clearly outlined in Corp regs. Paperwork, procedure, and directives fall under command and IAA. Not you. If you feel as if you see a breach of a regulation outside of Corp Regs, report it and wait for the okay from your direct superior.

2. Respect your superiors

-Respect all heads of staff and attempt to follow their orders where possible. Stay out of departments you are told to stay out of. Keep an open line of communication with the commander who's department you are operating in if at all possible.

-Obey orders from your direct superiors. DO orders override all else, Captain orders override HoS, HoS orders are for security alone.

-Obtain permission from either Central, the captain, or the entirety of command, before going after a command staff member. They outrank you, and ICly they have enough political weight to get you fired.

3. Respect other crewmembers

-Minimum force when detaining another crewmember. Do not use lethals when tasers or flashbangs will do. Do not use tasers or flashbangs when pepperspray or a flash will do. Do not use a flash when words will do.

-Don't stick your dick into the legal workings of another department. If they have paperwork done, you back off and let them work.

 

---

---

 

It's funny. I've played a fair number of security-based characters historically, and I've never ever had someone complain about me. Even though my officer characters are robust as hell. The only complaint I personally had to recent history was being over aggressive as an antagonist which I resolved with the player in question without further incident.

Quite frankly, in my opinion, Aurora needs a massive crackdown on security power. When every highpop round has eight security slots filled yet only a bare handful of players in medical, science, or engineering there is a clear indication of an imbalance. But hey, I'm just the anti-sec guy aren't I?

Edited June 15, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Security are the only force without any real oversight on the station. They don't answer to IAA, they don't answer to CC, and they don't answer to the Captain.

Until security bans start getting handed out like candy for poor sec play, I don't honestly see that changing either.

 

Security is not perfect, as it is a job that has ridiculously high expectations that it demands from players. And everyone has their own interpretation as to how security is to be run. I bow to your greater wisdom if you manage to cook up any idealistic molding you want security to adhere to.

 

Ooh, ooh, me! I've got it.

1. Respect the law

-At all times, attempt to follow regulations as set in corporate regulations. If you see clear violations of such, detain the person doing so regardless of role. If you see a borderline case, report it to your direct superiors and wait for approval. (Direct superiors being the HoS, Cap, and DOs. DO trumps all, Cap orders trump HoS.)

-Do not get involved in issues that are not clearly outlined in Corp regs. Paperwork, procedure, and directives fall under command and IAA. Not you. If you feel as if you see a breach of a regulation outside of Corp Regs, report it and wait for the okay from your direct superior.

2. Respect your superiors

-Respect all heads of staff and attempt to follow their orders where possible. Stay out of departments you are told to stay out of. Keep an open line of communication with the commander who's department you are operating in if at all possible.

-Obey orders from your direct superiors. DO orders override all else, Captain orders override HoS, HoS orders are for security alone.

-Obtain permission from either Central, the captain, or the entirety of command, before going after a command staff member. They outrank you, and ICly they have enough political weight to get you fired.

3. Respect other crewmembers

-Minimum force when detaining another crewmember. Do not use lethals when tasers or flashbangs will do. Do not use tasers or flashbangs when pepperspray or a flash will do. Do not use a flash when words will do.

-Don't stick your dick into the legal workings of another department. If they have paperwork done, you back off and let them work.

 

I'm going to write these down as mental notes at the beginning of the round for myself.

I'll see about drilling these into the heads of others, too.

[Guest]

Okay. Can I make an analogy?

Some of you are saying that the Captain's boss sets Regs, so the Captain can't reprieve or order against them, because they're just a Station Administrator.

But lets look at a school. Its Head Administrator is the Principal. They are given a Code of Conduct by the schoolboard to enforce with rough punishments laid out for violations. The Principal however, can choose to absolve ANY detention given by a teacher to a student, or even given by a Vice Principal.

In this case, the Principal is the Captain, the Teacher is an Officer and the student is a crew member. The detention, is the brig time they get for drawing 'COCK' on the floor in the washroom.

A majority of Corp Regs arent overly illegal, especially the minor ones. They are merely corporate rules that have no base in actual law.

[Guest]

I'm sorry, how is this relevant?

 

Allow me to elaborate.

You and various other security regulars have a narrow and specific way of how everything ever should be handled - you think that's the correct way of how things should be handled and you seem to be very rooted in that idea, unwilling to make a compromise.

You play an independant stronk security character who dont need no head, surrounded by other independant characters who dont need no head - and you've all got your narrow specific view of how things should go.

Every other department is generally acquainted with asshole heads, maybe the CMO will yell at you for something because that's his character, something like that. Maybe he'll make some odd rule to spice things up like, "Don't wear red shoes" or "End each of your sentences with "Quack" when speaking on the radio". Something which albeit is assholeish ICly, improves the round simply by introducing a little menial conflict.

Now, if anyone tried this on security - they'd be beaten, stripped and permabrigged. Possibly followed by a character complaint.

You've essentialy got all these characters who are so badass, so independant that they absolutely refuse to accept any authority on station besides their own - going as far as to justify arresting the Station's Captain because they didn't like them. What can the captain do in such a situation? If he tries to have the sec officers fired, he'll be arrested. If he files a DO report, the characters will be given therapy after a month or so, and then they'll keep shitting on command's authority.

Essentialy, security is the strongest department on station because they have the guns and numbers to arrest everyone, even the captain. The only reason security listens to the captain is because of roleplay reasons.

That's why im addressing you in specific, because Vira is a character which doesn't let anyone push her around against her will - even when she should fear demotion, incarceration or outright being fired. There is nothing stopping you from having her 'take the law into her own hands' every time someone with a higher rank tries to get her to do something she doesn't want to do, this is something which extends beyond Vira and into most Sec regulars.

There is essentialy no logical, believable IC way to deal with a private security force usurping a space station and turning it into their personal feudal monarchy, everything ends in bloodshed - and having the Captain somehow kill everyone in security untill they recognize his authority every round is a silly idea.

If the captain can't stop your character from being ridiculously badass, and DOs can't stop your character from being ridiculously badass, who can? What is the regulating force, here?

[Guest]

OKAY I ASKED SKULL132 FOR AN OFFICIAL STANCE.

If the Captain is detained, and there is a call for his demotion / replacement. This is how it goes.

 

 

Basically, Heads would probably vote the Captain out, Internal Affairs would grant consent or kinda like veto their vote, either path they choose they fax Central Command to confirm / notify.

[Skull132]

Allow me to add onto the snippet Xander posted.

In my mind, there are two terms that are being used incorrectly and interchangeably here:

"To pardon"

"To null/to drop charges"

Let's review these two:

To Pardon

The action of an executive official of the government that mitigates or sets aside the punishment for a crime.

 

Pardoning assumes the person being pardoned legitimately guilty of a crime, and the sentence to be just. The Captain does not have the authority to dismiss a prisoner who is rightfully guilty of his crimes, and rightfully sentenced based on the verdict. This power rests solely with Central Command, and any direct, empowered representatives (ERT and Duty Officers) of Central Command.

To Null/To Drop Charges

Unlike pardoning, this act does not assume the suspect guilty. Instead, it raises into question the validity of the arrest, the evidence, and the sentence. This concern can be investigated by anyone with investigative authority (in order of most preferred: Duty Officers, Internal Affairs Agents, Captain, Command Staff members). If the evidence for the arrest is found overly circumstancial, lacking, flawed, or otherwise missing, then the arrest and charges related can be nulled, and no further punishment applied/previous punishment in the case undone, where possible. Security should be expected to cooperate with anyone wishing to review evidence, as long as that party in question is not involved.

[Eliot Clef]

I'm pretty sure the round that prompted this discussion had Command agreeing that the Captain stepped terribly out of line. I'm not certain they were intent on demoting him? Exceeding Official Powers is only a fifteen minute sentence unless they're pushing it to the absurd and unnecessary extreme of maximum time plus demotion. At any rate, I can't comment on that particular matter.

I don't know what kind of time Security that round intended to give him.

I don't think demoting the Captain should be particularly simple unless the Captain broke regulations that would also be considered serious crimes, like murder. I also don't think putting the Captain in time-out for a while should be impossible because he's the Captain.

 

Every other department is generally acquainted with asshole heads, maybe the CMO will yell at you for something because that's his character, something like that. Maybe he'll make some odd rule to spice things up like, "Don't wear red shoes" or "End each of your sentences with "Quack" when speaking on the radio". Something which albeit is assholeish ICly, improves the round simply by introducing a little menial conflict.

 

My one experience with an HoS who was an "Asshole Head" was a guy who wouldn't allow carbine use when a nukeop squad was running around with ballistics. Asshole HoSes get people killed instead of being a little obnoxious.

I will say in defense of your overall argument that I am, in fact, generally opposed to most anything that allows people to run interference against Security, because Security is already an obnoxious enough job where people will hate you even if you're right. I don't really relish dealing with some screaming, flailing asshole and have to deal with his screaming and flailing while being questioned every step of the way by some other source.

(Admittedly, the quality of sec lately has dipped towards pretty terrible on some rounds, and I suspect my "desired standards" aren't as high as yours might be.)