Skull132 Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 If neither side is clearly and irrevocably in the wrong with their calls, then yes, the higher authority figure dictates movement.
Guest Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Slightly off-topic question, but it has to do with Captains? Would a Captain get in trouble if they had their title changed to 'Station Administrator'
jackfractal Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 If neither side is clearly and irrevocably in the wrong with their calls, then yes, the higher authority figure dictates movement. I know I'm being petty here, but I feel as though the specifics of this are pretty important. Who gets to decide what is 'clear' or what is 'wrong'? If all it takes to override the Captain, or a DO, or anyone who theoretically holds authority over you is saying 'Well you're clearly wrong' and getting some people to agree with you, then you still don't have a functional chain of command. SS13 is a game of hidden information. Anyone you're talking too, especially if they're in a command position, may have access to entirely different information about what's going on then you do. You might think something is 'clearly wrong' but you could be very mistaken. At least to me, disobeying an Authority Figure should be a significant decision. You don't just do it if you think they're misguided, you don't do it if you think they're wrong, you do it only when NOT doing it would result in something that is absolutely unacceptable to you. I'm talking about the kind of thing where 'I would rather die then obey that order, sir.' is an appropriate response. Such as, if the Captain orders Security to execute unarmed civilians, or orders the Engineering team to release the singularity. Even then, it still makes more sense to simply refuse the order. You'll probably get in trouble, but way less trouble than you would if you mutinied. I'd argue that removing someone giving those kind of orders from command is still mutiny, by definition, but the actions of the mutineers may later be ratified by a higher authority. If you arrest the Captain without clearance from someone who outranks them, then you're basically gambling on the idea that the people who hired your boss will side with you over them when the official investigation happens. If they don't, you are incredibly screwed. Even if they do, you're probably still in a lot of trouble because all of your actions during that time will be under intense scrutiny. That's why, if the Captain was doing things that I disagreed with, I'd call their boss first before I tried to arrest them. A Duty Officer might write me a strongly worded memo for not following the proper chain of command, but I'm unlikely to blacklisted or shot for it.
Skull132 Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 You're trying to dissect an age old dilemma. As I outlined in my initial two blurbs, Captain can make you follow just about any order. You have the opportunity to dismiss them of command, should the situation call for it, but you wouldn't do this based on a singular case or a singular order. Nor would you do this during a critical situation, unless absoloutely warranted. See, I've already got about 3 situational clauses in my paragraph. This discussion is highly dependent on the situation and the players in that situation. Bracing for every single potential what-if is impossible. It is better to arm yourself with the judgement required to know when to follow a misguided order, or when to argue against one. It also helps if you know how to argue against one, as doing it improperly is mutiny, where as doing it properly is reporting an officer damaging to the Corporation.
Recommended Posts