UnknownMurder Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 I propose a change to the Corporate Regulations and whatnot that Identification Card should not be important to have it on and visible other as it becomes mandatory in Code Blue and Red.
Synnono Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 I propose a change to the Corporate Regulations and whatnot that Identification Card should not be important to have it on and visible other as it becomes mandatory in Code Blue and Red. What? I'm not sure I understand your sentence, but I believe it's suggesting that wearing an ID card visibly during code green should be optional, and only mandatory during code blue and higher. If this is the case, I disagree. Workplaces with security of any kind often make it mandatory to prominently display identification, and many encourage their employees to challenge people who aren't doing that. In respect to NanoTrasen spess stations specifically, a ton of the machinery and electronics are meant to react to an ID card as well. Why would people want to not wear them at work? Aside from potentially getting yourself confused with a wizard for the lols, what are the mechanical benefits of your suggestion? (Aside from all this, regulations specific to IDs don't appear to be covered under the wiki regs, but I would sure as heck include it in i106 Suspicious Conduct if I saw someone aboard a secure station with no ID card.)
UnknownMurder Posted June 19, 2017 Author Posted June 19, 2017 I'm not sure I understand your sentence, but I believe it's suggesting that wearing an ID card visibly during code green should be optional, and only mandatory during code blue and higher. Yes. Why would people want to not wear them at work? You might want to ask yourself that question one more time and see if you can come up with an answer to it.
Guest Complete Garbage Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 Why would people want to not wear them at work? You might want to ask yourself that question one more time and see if you can come up with an answer to it. I've asked myself, "Why would you not wear an ID on yourself at work," and could not think of an answer at all. Could you elaborate on your thought process here, since I believe that's what the question was posed as in the first place? "Ask yourself that" is not a proper response to a question which genuinely intends to attain information, especially when the answer is not straightforward.
Azande Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 At Walmart, I am required to ask anyone who is stocking shelves or in an employee area that doesn't have a nametag who they are, what they are doing and then to report to Customer Service to register as a visitor, or put their ID on if they're an employee. And Im just a stocking associate.
Synnono Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 Why would people want to not wear them at work? You might want to ask yourself that question one more time and see if you can come up with an answer to it. "Ask yourself that" is not a proper response to a question which genuinely intends to attain information, especially when the answer is not straightforward. CG - Agreed. UM - I did do this, after you asked, and I can't come up with one. Keep in mind that you are suggesting NanoTrasen's regulations be changed to be explicitly permissive of this, which is the context that I asked that question in. In that context, I cannot think of a good reason why the company would want to allow that, or why its employees need it spelled out in the reg book. As of right now, there doesn't seem to be a reg that even states you have to wear one at all. It's just common sense that you should. To revise/summarize from my last post: 1. Why would NanoTrasen want to allow this behavior at work explicitly in their regulations? What is the benefit to them? 2. What is the benefit to mechanics or gameplay, in your opinion? 3. What is your thought process behind wanting to make the change? (This is mostly what I wanted to know with the other post) 4. Which regulation is being changed (or is one being added?), and is it necessary to even change/add at all in order to behave like this?
Scheveningen Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 >weird dude wearing balaclava, chaplain robes, latex gloves, a tool belt and a very suspicious black duffel bag and no ID standing in the hallway >officer asks the dude to show his ID >"fuck off it's code green respect my privacy" Why would people want to not wear them at work? You might want to ask yourself that question one more time and see if you can come up with an answer to it. You know that you're the person that needs to defend their reasoning for this suggestion, not them, right?
Skull132 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 > Lackluster suggestion that doesn't even bother to answer the initial question of, "Why do we want this?" > Is about to get dismissed for lacking said reasoning > Sees that no such rule exists wellokay.jpg No, but, [mention]UnknownMurder[/mention] please do advocate your point beyond simply stating how things should be. Otherwise this'll get binned as missing reasoning.
Arrow768 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 Hm, at work people are supposed to have their ID card visible at all times. But its not enforced, so there are only very few people who actually have their ID Card visible. They need to have it on person tough, because they need that id to clock in and out and to get through the access control system.
Guest Menown Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 Solutions: * Code Green -> No ID required to be visible. If requested to by Security, ID must be presented, not doing so can be held as suspicious conduct, netting yourself a free search. * Code Blue/Red/Delta -> ID required visible. People where I work all have ID cards to open doors and stuff, but we don't have to have them displayed. I don't even technically work there, I'm just a contractor. We just have to produce them if asked, or else security will kindly escort us off the premises.
JKJudgeX Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 I kinda like the idea of the station having visitors who come for various reasons... "here for an interview", "here to buy some resources/items from cargo", "here on a stop for further travel to vacation spot/eventual destination", "here for a medical procedure" - all things that may or may not be actually being done during the shift that we are playing. This is why I like the visitor role. It makes the hallways and civilian areas of the station more like a "public" area. So, I feel like the original suggestion might have some merit to be considered if we say no IDs have to be shown - in public areas... if you are down in research you need to have an ID on display, or in security or engineering or the bridge, etc. Out in the hall or the chapel or the bar, on green alert? I'd be fine with a no ID requirement. Why? For the reasons stated above about visitors who should have rights since they aren't employees (as if employees shouldn't lol, well trained proles)... but for meta reasons, it helps antags like wizard who show up without an ID not immediately be meta-known to the crew as an antag. I'd kinda also like to see "visitors" not show up in employee records.
Kaed Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 This seems like an utterly pointless suggestion. Unlike the other 'alert level' moderated thing, suit sensors, there is absolutely no tactical benefit to not having your ID displayed. You're not even hiding your location or identity, because anyone passing by who notices you have no ID is going to ask to see it and not doing so is immediately suspicious. By adding this you just create a scenario where some irritating assistant or whatever obstinately refuses to put on their ID be cause 'i don't have to its code green lol'. This is supposed to be a private, secure research station, not a civilian hangout spot, and frankly, I don't think that people should be allowed to turn their suit sensors off entirely without being looked at askance either, but that's a different subject. The way things are now is fine, where people are expected to have identification on themselves at all times, and if they are walking around without it then someone will ask them to put it on.
AllyBearsley Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 I agree with Kaed. ID's fit comfortably into your PDA and comfortably on a slot at your hip. With this addition I imagine a lot of people are just going to keep their ID in that convenient slot, so they can walk through their departments uninterrupted. To take it off in the hallways is virtually pointless. Why remove something that is in a convenient slot already? It just takes time and is for some flavour(?). I think the way things are is fine. If IDs were in anyway uncomfortable, I could understand this change. As is it seems entirely pointless.
JKJudgeX Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 I still say it'd make sense. People lose IDs, and some antags start without them, changelings need IDs to completely subsume someone's appearance, but, if they didn't *have* to have them, and you didn't have the right to demand an ID on green, a changeling could steal someone's DNA, dress like them, and masquerade as them without the ID more effectively. That plus the visitor reasons I mentioned above gives plenty of room for it to be reasonable to be able to refuse/ignore an ID check on Green alert.
Guest Menown Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 I still say it'd make sense. People lose IDs, and some antags start without them, changelings need IDs to completely subsume someone's appearance, but, if they didn't *have* to have them, and you didn't have the right to demand an ID on green, a changeling could steal someone's DNA, dress like them, and masquerade as them without the ID more effectively. That plus the visitor reasons I mentioned above gives plenty of room for it to be reasonable to be able to refuse/ignore an ID check on Green alert. Refusing to provide proof you work there on Code Green isn't something we should allow.
Skull132 Posted June 22, 2017 Posted June 22, 2017 https://kama.skullnet.me/index.php/s/1XIipOlMvFQooti Binned at the request of the author, and because it's not really workable/concrete.
Recommended Posts