Making the Internal Affairs Agent Playable

[BlueScope]

I'm one of the few (if not the only) people who regularly play the IAA position, and I've enjoyed my time aboard Aurora, but I can't help but notice that the position is somewhat lacking. On the wiki, the only official power denoted to the IAA is settling interdepartmental disputes, and getting Heads/Captains binned by sending a message to Central. However, in practice, this position may as well not exist as described by the wiki. Heads/Captains are specifically vetted via whitelist to ensure that the situation the IAA exists to deal with doesn't happen, and interdepartmental disputes that can't be dealt with by security occur once in a blue moon.

As the position is described on the wiki, the IAA is more highly scrutinized that the Captain is, and have mandatory loyalty implants. To this end, I propose the IAA becomes another whitelist only position, and is given several additional powers, listed below.

1. Give them the ability to officially stand in for absent Heads, especially the Head of Personnel and the Captain. We're constantly missing one or both of these, and it'd give the IAA something to do.

2. Give them access to the evidence locker and briefing room. I actually filled out a structural change form for this in character, and got it stamped by the Captain and Head of Security, but Central didn't even bother to respond. This underlines one of the main issues with the position, given that the IAA's primary power is communication with Central. I understand that staff can't be present all the time, but the position is dependent on them as it stands.

3. On red-alert , give them the ability to act as additional Security officers.

4. Give them the ability to add to or modify space-law and procedure to deal with new circumstances. They are meant to be the station's experts on the subject. Naturally changes would have to be green-lit by Central.

5. Expand their ID permissions to give them access to the HoP's/Captain's office so they can execute the duties above, especially the HoP so ID's can be modified. I understand this might be a bit much, perhaps instead just give them an ID console?

This was all I could come up with on the fly, but I believe it'd be a good start.

"Thank you for your careful attendance in this matter"

- Dorian Bonds

[Valkrae]

If we added this, IA Agents would have to be whitelisted to prevent griffing.

[BlueScope]

As the position is described on the wiki, the IAA is more highly scrutinized that the Captain is, and have mandatory loyalty implants. To this end, I propose the IAA becomes another whitelist only position, and is given several additional powers, listed below.

[SgtSammac]

3. On red-alert , give them the ability to act as additional Security officers.

No. They are bureaucrats. Not 007 secret service agents.

[BlueScope]

No. They are bureaucrats. Not 007 secret service agents.

 

I posted this looking for input as well, yours is appreciated. You are absolutely correct, as it stands they are just bureaucrats, which is why I'm looking for a change. I would argue that the true purpose of the IAA is to act as the last bastion in the face of total corruption. I am not implying that on red-alert the IAA would go around arresting people for littering, they would take that mantle with a very specific person/goal in mind. It wouldn't be required for them to do so every time there is a red alert, but take the last round for example. I see the Head of Security's dismembered head and a pile of gore, and a strange unknown man dressed in robes in front of me. What was I forced to do? Ask him to stay put while the only cadet still alive came along. The loyalty implant forces the IAA to follow the rules, even in cases of extreme emergency.

That being said, not every IAA would be cut out for that. As with every position, the skills of the individual vary. An IAA who was first a Security officer is going to have different training than one who was a HoP.

[Chaznoodles]

The whole purpose of IAA is to be bureaucrats, not a head or an acting-head. They have their job, being Central Command's LEGAL arm on the station, and that's that, in my opinion.

[BlueScope]

Then I guess that begs the question, if this is a research station, what's the point of having the LEGAL branch of NT on it at all? I suppose they could just be removed, but I'm looking to modify a position so that people can have fun playing it, which I believe is the point of any game. If that involves switching the lore around a little, or changing the job description to serve that purpose, why not?

[Frances]

Then I guess that begs the question, if this is a research station, what's the point of having the LEGAL branch of NT on it at all?

Not legal. Investigative. They're sort of like your job inspector - one thing they actually exist for is conducting inspections of departments, interviews, and ensuring all goes well/regulations are respected. And they exist to solve any conflicts, not just those involving heads - if someone has a complaint, if there's an incident report about a fight, if somebody is getting fired, the IAA has the right to investigate. You can also act as an adviser to heads.

Now, to look at the proposed changes, and why I'm against most of them.

 

1. Give them the ability to officially stand in for absent Heads, especially the Head of Personnel and the Captain. We're constantly missing one or both of these, and it'd give the IAA something to do.

Except being a head requires expertise and good knowledge of a department - having a single person with the possibility of overlooking any department is a bad idea, both IC-wise and OOCly.

 

2. Give them access to the evidence locker and briefing room. I actually filled out a structural change form for this in character, and got it stamped by the Captain and Head of Security, but Central didn't even bother to respond. This underlines one of the main issues with the position, given that the IAA's primary power is communication with Central. I understand that staff can't be present all the time, but the position is dependent on them as it stands.

IAAs don't conduct direct crime investigations. An IAA shouldn't be able to waltz into evidence and grab whatever they want - they'll have to coordinate with security for that. Unsure about the briefing room, can't really see it hurting, though again, IAAs are barely sec - they're not even under the control of the HoS, afaik. So I think in a way, lack of brig access serves to reinforce that - they shouldn't be in the briefing room, cause it's not explicitly their job to care about security briefings.

 

3. On red-alert , give them the ability to act as additional Security officers.

Different training, different job. That simply makes security training an additional, needless requirement for the job.

 

4. Give them the ability to add to or modify space-law and procedure to deal with new circumstances. They are meant to be the station's experts on the subject. Naturally changes would have to be green-lit by Central.

Space Law is open to interpretation - but they effectively already have that power. Being the experts on corporate regulations (and the closest thing to a lawyer, though they don't behave like one), they should be consulted on matters which fall within gray areas of corporate regs, along with heads (and the warden).

 

5. Expand their ID permissions to give them access to the HoP's/Captain's office so they can execute the duties above, especially the HoP so ID's can be modified. I understand this might be a bit much, perhaps instead just give them an ID console?

Not their job. Why would they need this?

As a whole, this post feels to me like an attempt to give IAAs more power in order to make their job "more interesting". However, none of these changes are truly needed - nor do they bring much, all being highly situational. Rather, I feel like many people fail to understand the job of IAAs holistically - which is, to get into everybody's business, keep paperwork on every incident, run inspections, and generally keep the station on their toes to make sure everything is running into tip top shape.

It's a job focused around paperwork and chair RP - and it already has plenty of opportunities for that. Whitelisting it and making it action oriented essentially kills its purpose.

[BlueScope]

I'm sorry that you feel that this is me just trying to grab more power for the position. I am genuinely trying to improve a job on the station which I feel desperately needs a retooling. As you say, it's a job focused around paperwork and chair RP, but no one ever bothers to do paperwork, so it's a bit of a moot point. In practice, if you went around demanding paperwork from everyone and generally making people's lives miserable they won't RP with you. I've been doing my best to play the position exactly as you describe, however I feel they could be doing more, because at the end of the day the IAA generally ends up sitting in their office staring at the ceiling. With this problem in mind, I tried to put forward some solutions that would make it a more "active" position, since it's a bit off to just whine and complain without forwarding any solutions.

If the staff are inflexible on it remaining a paperwork oriented job, then add a law that makes not having proper paperwork a brigable offense. Right now, the IAA has absolutely no teeth whatsoever to deal with the issues they face, beyond heckling people to follow procedure and sending faxes which are largely ignored. As for things "not being their job", that's what I opened the thread for, so that a discussion could occur regarding that subject.

They are certainly situational changes - situations that occur all too often. I cannot remember the last time we had a full compliment of heads, and they are often desperately needed. Is it ideal for them to be a Head? No. But personally, I can see them being put in that position over, say for example, an officer/doctor/whatever with no loyalty implant.

The wiki actually goes so far to joke about how often the IAA is simply ignored. It just doesn't seem right to me. They absolutely should be contacted about legal grey areas, but never are. I'm speaking form the perspective of having played the position the way it was meant to be played, as described by you, for a month or three now. In my relatively brief time on Aurora, this was the best I could come up with.

Oh, and by the by it's a little discouraging to put thought into a matter that you believe requires attention, and be summarily dismissed by the community on the basis of "this is the way it's always been done, so we have to keep doing it this way". Especially when the first post indicates to person didn't take the time to read what I wrote all the way through, and the third post rehashes the point made in the second, which I already addressed. As I said at the inception of this post, I am trying to forward a different way of looking at something to make the position more fun for everyone to play. If there's nothing wrong with the position, then how come no one ever plays it?

Edited November 12, 2014 by Guest

[Frances]

I'm sorry that you feel that this is me just trying to grab more power for the position. I am genuinely trying to improve a job on the station which I feel desperately needs a retooling.

Shrug, I didn't say you were trying to make a powergrab. I was simply pointing out that's what most of your proposed changes will result in, without necessarily adding fun or relevant gameplay to the position. There's nothing wrong in wanting to open dialogue about a job that's often neglected - if there were a way to make IAAs more interesting to play, I'd like to find out about it too.

 

As you say, it's a job focused around paperwork and chair RP

So leave it for that, or suggest changes which improve the chair RP, not radically change the entire dynamic of Internal Affairs.

 

no one ever bothers to do paperwork, so it's a bit of a moot point. In practice, if you went around demanding paperwork from everyone and generally making people's lives miserable they won't RP with you. I've been doing my best to play the position exactly as you describe, however I feel they could be doing more, because at the end of the day the IAA generally ends up sitting in their office staring at the ceiling.

It's not just about doing paperwork. I usually only make people write forms if they want me to go out of my way to do something non-standard for them (such as requesting approval for weird experiments, or demanding non job-specific equipment), but although you'd expect irl officers to fill in arrest reports for every incident they intervene in, it's unrealistic to ask them to due to the volume of paperwork it would generate OOCly.

You can go around interviewing people - which they usually don't mind - or asking to conduct workplace investigations - which might annoy some characters ICly, but does create some very interesting RP. And for paperwork, the things people don't generally like is having to write long paragraphs, or filling the same forms over and over again. But if you create your own forms, and keep them simple and purposeful, people will rarely object to having to fill in a few fields and a signature.

 

If the staff are inflexible on it remaining a paperwork oriented job, then add a law that makes not having proper paperwork a brigable offense.

No, then that would force everyone to do the annoying paperwork no one likes. Important procedures already need paperwork (e.g. a borging without proper paperwork will result in at the least a manslaughter charge), and the smaller ones are fine without (or with, at the document's emitter's discretion).

 

They are certainly situational changes - situations that occur all too often. I cannot remember the last time we had a full compliment of heads, and they are often desperately needed.

This happens because there are not enough people whitelisted/wanting to play head roles. Whitelisting the IAA accomplishes nothing in that aspect - if I feel like playing a head, I'm going to join as a head, not as an IAA.

[BlueScope]

So leave it for that, or suggest changes which improve the chair RP, not radically change the entire dynamic of Internal Affairs.

 

Maybe the creation of a new position is in order then? Something that fuses the bureaucracy of the IAA with the activity of Security, that answers directly to NT?

 

And for paperwork, the things people don't generally like is having to write long paragraphs, or filling the same forms over and over again. But if you create your own forms, and keep them simple and purposeful, people will rarely object to having to fill in a few fields and a signature.

 

I attempted to make a more succinct form for various things on day one, and was dismissed by an admin for not using the forms that already exist, which are quite clunky. I was told that the reason was they were designed to be clunky.

 

No, then that would force everyone to do the annoying paperwork no one likes. Important procedures already need paperwork (e.g. a borging without proper paperwork will result in at the least a manslaughter charge), and the smaller ones are fine without (or with, at the document's emitter's discretion).

 

Heh. I apologize, that was more than a little sarcasm on my point to illustrate that no one does paperwork.

 

This happens because there are not enough people whitelisted/wanting to play head roles. Whitelisting the IAA accomplishes nothing in that aspect - if I feel like playing a head, I'm going to join as a head, not as an IAA.

 

Reflecting on that, I believe you are correct. I suppose the original intent of the proposition was for the IAA to fill whatever particular position was required, and then stepping down when the real deal finally joins the station.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Guest

[Guest]

I'm going to second the fact that nobody does paperwork.

One shift as the Head of Personnel, I was trying out a new character, who was on their first official shift as a Head of Staff, and they were really nervous, and the Head of Security at the time, (Ana Issek) had sent, I believe it was an Assistant, to my office to be promoted to Officer, of course, I started to get the forms out, and told the Head of Security they would need to sign the form, I was then verbally harassed by said Head of Security, who outlined that nobody smart does paperwork as it wastes time, and when I tried to explain it was a legal requirement, the Captain at the time (Vira De Santos) ordered me to "cut corners" and ignore filing paperwork while doing transfers, ID alterations and the bunch. So basically, under the peer pressure of two of the "Big Three" Heads, I spent the entire round ignoring the bureaucracy of my position, rather than suffer the legal penalties of ignoring a superior's valid orders.

[Guest]

Also, I think, due to the lack of staff actually responding/acting on faxes from the IAA in my experience, they should be given the power to temporarily suspend any personnel member onboard pending permission from Central to have said person demoted, except the Captain, who can only be suspended/demoted by Heads of Staff.

This could work nicely, there could be a nice Internal Suspension NCF form for it too! And there would have to be no major change to anything of how the job works.

[BlueScope]

I think that's a great start Xander, and looking in the direction of making the IA more able to act without contact with Central was defiantly what I had in mind.

[Guest]

Like the system would work on this basis,

An Internal Affairs Agent may suspend anyone onboard besides the Captain without Central Command permission for up to 30 minutes, for investigative purposes.

With a Head of Staffs signature on the Suspension NCF Form, an Internal Affairs Agent may order a Indefinite Suspension pending review of employee quality at Central Command.

Small changes like this would actually attract attention, because the IAA wouldn't just be told that "We're handling matters internally as a department" by the HoS every time an Officer beat someone.

[Witt]

Pssst xander, that is why IAA exists, if heads won't do the paperwork,let CC know; we can help.

Oh and to you heads that ignore paperwork, even Jace does paperwork for everything, even sacrificing balds to lord singulo. So hop to it

[Frances]

Maybe the creation of a new position is in order then? Something that fuses the bureaucracy of the IAA with the activity of Security, that answers directly to NT?

This was actually discussed before. I dug up the thread for you: http://auroraserver.freeforums.net/thread/1247/liaison-officer

Basically, the consensus ended up being that that would be too much power for a single position. Remember we're trying to make IAA more interesting here, not create a new job to fix an unrelated problem.

 

I attempted to make a more succinct form for various things on day one, and was dismissed by an admin for not using the forms that already exist, which are quite clunky. I was told that the reason was they were designed to be clunky.

That seems absolutely wrong, and whoever told you that was either in the wrong or failed at carrying their point across. While the forms attempt to look official and use a certain level of vocabulary, they should still be clear and concise.

If you feel like you have better forms than our current ones (or would like to officialize new ones), head over to the paperwork suggestion thread here: http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=182

If your forms are good, there's no reason why they should be thrown out.

 

I suppose the original intent of the proposition was for the IAA to fill whatever particular position was required, and then stepping down when the real deal finally joins the station.

Even then, that would be rather problematic given IAAs aren't necessarily meant to have any idea how a specific department can be run. Better appoint nobody in charge than somebody who can't do anything, but still serves as an obstruction and someone others need to get approval from.

 

---

---

So basically, under the peer pressure of two of the "Big Three" Heads, I spent the entire round ignoring the bureaucracy of my position, rather than suffer the legal penalties of ignoring a superior's valid orders.

That's heads being flat out bad. The HoP's job is to keep track of paperwork, given they don't have a terribly active department to direct (just the civilian jobs, which generally require less micromanagement). Job reassignments are more than major enough to justify paperwork being done.

 

Also, I think, due to the lack of staff actually responding/acting on faxes from the IAA in my experience, they should be given the power to temporarily suspend any personnel member onboard pending permission from Central to have said person demoted, except the Captain, who can only be suspended/demoted by Heads of Staff.

IAAs aren't whitelisted, and this has a lot of potential for abuse. People with poor decision-making skills, who haven't been cleared for head whitelists, basically abusing the IAA spot to support their personal feuds by suspending staff until they're job-banned.

[LetzShake]

Does the IAA have a fax machine in their office? If not, they really should, that addition alone would help a ton.

That said, I think making it a white listed position in the same categories as heads is a good decision, because they're loyalty implanted from the start and it shouldn't be one of the go-to positions for chucklefucks like it's kind of turned into (not that long ago, I played a round where I had to flash an IAA who was trying to strangle a cultist to death as the cultist was being arrested).

Make it whitelisted, then give them ID computer access, maybe, with the understanding that abusing this access will result in a jobban

[Frances]

That said, I think making it a white listed position in the same categories as heads is a good decision, because they're loyalty implanted from the start and it shouldn't be one of the go-to positions for chucklefucks like it's kind of turned into (not that long ago, I played a round where I had to flash an IAA who was trying to strangle a cultist to death as the cultist was being arrested.

Except while we do see a lot of this kind of chucklefucking from IAAs (Mr. Blackafro Demnigguz IAA breaking into the teleporter room and having drunken punch-outs), it's very, very easily jobbanned, and does not justify whitelisting at all. Putting IAA on the whitelist will essentially kill it, as even fewer people will ever consider picking up the job (same reason why AI isn't whitelisted, though the AI has a lot more power). And I think I like the fact that we have a paperwork/RP-oriented job that's not whitelisted. Basically, IAAs can do the heads' dirty work, conduct investigations, then have the heads/Centcom apply justice/demotion/whatever.

Also, the IAA office does have a fax machine.

[Guest]

Frances, on a side note, Im still trying to get a chance to renovate the IAA Office and screenshot it, since the current office is terribly clunky and has WAY to many folders for its own god damn good

[Guest]

Also, I think, due to the lack of staff actually responding/acting on faxes from the IAA in my experience, they should be given the power to temporarily suspend any personnel member onboard pending permission from Central to have said person demoted, except the Captain, who can only be suspended/demoted by Heads of Staff.

 

IAAs aren't whitelisted, and this has a lot of potential for abuse. People with poor decision-making skills, who haven't been cleared for head whitelists, basically abusing the IAA spot to support their personal feuds by suspending staff until they're job-banned.

This is why I later added that the suspension could only be done for 20-30 or so minutes without a Head of Staffs permission and even than, could only be done ONCE to a person throughout a shift, as in, no double jeopardy unless Head authorized, anyone suffering abuse could easily Ahelp.

[Guest]

Also! I think instead of having a headset with Security comms access, that the IAA should have command access. Much more relevant to their job.

[Frances]

This is why I later added that the suspension could only be done for 20-30 or so minutes without a Head of Staffs permission and even than, could only be done ONCE to a person throughout a shift, as in, no double jeopardy unless Head authorized, anyone suffering abuse could easily Ahelp.

Taking someone out of the round for 30 minutes, or even being able to bug them for a full 30 minutes over chucklefucking, is a pretty bad thing. Putting a time limit on it hardly changes anything, I don't think this is a power IAAs should have.

And before the "but security can brig people" argument gets brought in, brigging is a pretty cut and dry exercise - you look to see if there's been a breach of corporate regulations, and if there is, you stick them in the bin, for more or less the time that's already written down in the book.

[Guest]

Then instead of suspensions, have a fine system, uhm, I dont know if you play Goon as Security, but their PDAs have the ability to issue fines and warnings that print out... Some cost money and take it from your account etc... IA needs SOMETHING to make it worth playing.

[Frances]

IA needs SOMETHING to make it worth playing.

Roleplay?