Job Suspension+

[Shadow]

Ill be honest, I don't trust all whitelisted players with this power.

However, if enough people support this I am willing to let this go through under one condition, command staff has to ask CC before they suspend+ someone.

[Guest]

So clearly the administration doesn't trust our whitelistees, I don't entirely blame them. But whose fault is that? Clearly the Admins need to tighten their leashes on Head of Staff whitelists and our current Heads.

[Serveris]

It's being discussed in response to this thread. We're looking at tightening expectations and reorganizing CCIA protocol as an alternative to this.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

There's no point to this if it needs CCIA approval. The point is to literally make the process more accessible, because CCIAA is slow. I do not agree with you that there is a large pool of potential abuse waiting to happen. I think you are comparing a single character being banned from a single job slot for a few hours to a full job ban.

[Serveris]

I think you are comparing a single character being banned from a single job slot for a few hours to a full job ban.

 

Then you're mistaken, and haven't really bothered weighing all the issues against it. My stance isn't based on one single player causing problems in command. My stance is based off of experience as an administrator and a moderator dealing with command staff as a whole. Based on the current climate and the active command population, as well as CCIA and administration's current burdens, I am decisively stating this has the strong chance to blow up in our faces.

Be that as it may, I will also stand with Shadow and concede to community decision. But seriously. Think this through; really think this through before you commit to a decision. Weigh what can go wrong against the benefits provide. Disregard how you plan for it to be used for a moment, and think about how most players will actually end up using it.

[Skull132]

If implemented, this system should be implemented with reactive oversight. Meaning, you assume all suspensions to be legitimate until a complaint comes up. Once a complaint does come up, whether we funnel it to admins or DOs, it can be mopped up within 24 hours easily, and misuse punished at that point. It would also help if you establish a clear, "Fuck up twice, you're out," system, whereby you directly go after someone's whitelist if it's confirmed that they abuse it. Remember: they're whitelisted. Staff have the authority to remove that whitelist upon misuse. That is literally why the whitelist system is a thing, it's not just there to test your writing skills.

And if it gets abused en-masse. Just take away the toy the whitelisted players ruined for themselves.

As for whether or not it should be implemented. Well, let's look at a few things.

Intent is to make the consequence for failure more tangible, specifically if failure comes from bad conduct.

The tools fall in line with temporary punishment shenanigans, and are intended to be an inconvenience and an ego-blow at most.

Monitoring won't be an issue, everything can be logged.

If successfully implemented, this would enable DOs to very easily and very quickly acquire more boots on the ground. Basically, you have people to delegate minor issues to, enabling the DOs themselves to deal with higher level issues. It would also amplify the effects of DO policy, if the whitelisted players start enforcing it. Boots on the ground are what's needed to enforce policy, remember this. And DOs right now, still lack an onboard presence enough to actually make them effective. This might be a way to achieve this.

The risk is obvious: someone's stupid with it. That someone can get reported and his whitelist nixed. And as said, if abuse is en-masse, then we'll just shut it down and call the experiment a failure. Is this risk of abuse something we're willing to take, at the benefit of adding actual consequence to certain action?

[ForgottenTraveller]

Right time for me to engage in this. And add my thoughts.

There has been the old saying for head whitelists. 'Easy come, easy go.' As such. I am concerned about the heads of staff who will be using it. But I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Given how it can be taken away again as Skull mentioned.

And I am fine to go with the community decision.

If there is a way for the CCIA to access the faxes about these in a logged form possible before implementation to help in reactive oversight without having to send the admins through all the logs to check it for us would be preferred.

[Nanako]

Personally, i think everyone's making too big a deal out of it.

My opinion is a very firm 'Sure, whatever.' It'd be nice to have i guess.

[Guest]

Is this risk of abuse something we're willing to take, at the benefit of adding actual consequence to certain action?

 

As if anyone would be stupid enough to get caught misusing this mechanic and losing their whitelist as a result. Not much of an existent risk to begin with. Almost all matter of "damage" done is reversible in any respect.

Give it a shot, there's no harm in trying.