Jump to content

Incident Report - 03/09/2459

Recommended Posts

Reporting Personnel: Cathryn Latham

Rank of Reporting Personnel: Research Director

Game ID: bQh-cMvV]

Personnel Involved:

- Cathryn Latham, Victim (Superiorform)

- Vol-Blakk Xul-Qrr'Liax, Chief Engineer, Victim (Dunno, sorry)

- Karl Pollard, Chief Medical Officer, Victim (Dunno, sorry)

- Faysal Al-Shenawi, Witness (Alberyk)

- Klause Eliade, Offender (XanderDox)

Time of Incident:

Real time: Round ended 8:45 PM BST, 03/09/2017

Location of Incident: Engineering Department, Bridge

Nature of Incident:

  • []Workplace Hazard


    []Destruction of Property

    [X]Neglect of Duty




Overview of the Incident:

The incident began with the raising of the station alert level to blue. At the time, I was speaking to Mr Mitchell, and I did let slip the fact that no-one had mentioned anything about blue alert. It turns out that Mr Eliade had took it upon himself to raise to blue because of giant spiders on station, without informing or asking any other members of command. It should be noted that I have spoken to other command members before, and they echoed my sentiment. There is a rather common opinion that Mr Eliade often fails to communicate what he is doing, or what he thinks, but we shall come to that later.

Perhaps ten, or twenty minutes later, I hear over the command channel Mr Liax asking why there are security officer tromping through his department, and searching for an engineer. Clearly, Mr Eliade failed to inform the chief engineer that he was having one of his engineers searched. I know, myself, that I would be quite upset if a head of security tried to search or arrest one of my inferiors without my knowing. Mr Pollard mentions that code blue was initiated to deal with the spider threat, and not to deal with any possible subversive elements within the crew, and Mr Eliade shamelessly proclaims that he is now using code blue to search crewmembers. He was right too, from a technical standpoint. However, the rest of command considered this an abuse of the code blue. It was initiated to kill spiders, not violate crewmember's privacy, and I, myself, tell Mr Eliade to "quiet down and get a warrant." The rest of command asks him to get a warrant, and the HoS says something to the effect of "I do not need a warrant, I am entering engineering and searching it." He is rather didactic about the whole affair.

I initiate a command vote to reinstate full privacy laws, and force the head of security to get a warrant, which he ignores, and his behaviour takes an even steeper decline. He orders the arrest of the chief engineer, citing neglect of duty. Obviously, Mr Pollard points out how the chief engineer's actions in no way fall under neglect of duty, and he is, of course, ignored. I tell the head of security to not go about arresting command staff for disagreeing with him, when, in an ultimate twist of irony, he orders my arrest - for sabotage. I remember what he said clearly. This is a direct quote. "Latham, did we have a vote on changing the AI's laws? Or do I need to arrest you for sabotage too?" He is referring to earlier, when I asked the rest of command if I could relaw the AI, and was ignored. In the end, I did not touch the AI. The head of security did detain me for sabotage.

Command votes are being called left and right, to void the warrants, to have the head of security stand down, to take him to a manners class. He did tell me to "shut the fuck up." The head of security conveniently avoids all of these minor legal and ethical obstacles by putting warrants on us. He reasons that, as prisoners, we are unable to take part in command decisions, and in doing so, he secures his iron fist around command's, and the station's throat. I would just like to note how easily the head of security managed to sieze total power over the station, against the will of station command, merely by putting warrants up on us and telling us we cannot vote. A chilling thought, indeed.

All of command goes to the bridge, where I and Mr Liax are promptly tased by Halogen, a security officer. This is where it all gets muddled up in my mind, forgive any mistakes. We try to reason with the security officers, tell them that votes have been held, four for, one against, but we are ignored. They trusted in the commander's loyalty implant. It is at this point that the word "mutiny" is first thrown out. Mr Eliade, in a second twist of dramatic irony, accused the rest of command as mutiny. The concept contradicts itself. How could command possibly mutiny? The definition of mutiny is as follows: "To openly rebel against or attempt to remove command staff with violent intent." This is exactly what the HoS did. He had us all arrested and held on the bridge so he could ignore our decisions. He removed our authority to vote by arresting us, and rebelled against our communal decision. He also said that we could not make captain-level decisions without a unanimous decision, which is provably false. I would advise Mr Eliade to learn our directives.

I do believe Mr Eliade let his violent sense of pride get in the way of his ability to lead. He swore at me on multiple occasions, and he screamed and shouted at me. ((I assume all-caps is screaming and shouting?)). He could not swallow the fact that he was overruled, and he misused code blue, among many other offences.

Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who?: No one on station was of a higher rank than us, no Internal Affairs Agents were present.

Actions taken: None

Additional notes: I would not like any punishments levied against the ISD, they were merely following their loyalty implanted boss. However, the lack of knowledge on what decisions outrule others is rather worrying, from those who are paid to enforce regulations and directives.
Link to comment

TO: Cathryn Latham, Research Director, NSS Aurora


SUBJECT: RE: Incident Report



This is an automated message to inform you that your incident report has been received and placed in a queue for the CCIA Division to review.

You will be contacted, if necessary, by a CCIA Agent when and if an investigation begins.

DTG: 04-14:50-TAU CETI STANDARD-09-2459


Link to comment

TO: Cathryn Latham, Research Director, NSS Aurora

FROM: Lyla Rathen, CCIA Duty Officer, NTCC Odin

SUBJECT: RE: Incident Report



This is an automated message to inform you that an investigation has now been opened regarding your incident report, and assigned to CCIAA Lyla Rathen (Whiterabit).

You may be contacted by the duty officer for an interview, or you may contact them directly if you have any questions.


DTG: 12-11:07-TAU CETI STANDARD-09-2459

SIGN: CCIAA Lyla Rathen

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

TO: Cathryn Latham, Research Director, NSS Aurora

FROM: Lyla Rathen, Central Command Internal Affairs Agent, NTCC Odin

SUBJECT: RE: Incident Report



The investigation into this Incident Report has been concluded, and we have taken the action we deem most appropriate with regards to the involved personnel.

While the events surrounding this Incident Report are greatly disappointing, it has shed light on many grey areas within our regulation, directives, and procedures. In addition to the resolutions made with regards to the key personnel involved in this report, we have made preparations for the implementation of the following changes:

  • The directive entry regarding 'Captain level decisions made by Command Staff' is being clarified to require a unanimous vote. A minimum of 2 voting capable command will be required to make said vote. If the vote in question is made against another head, that individual in immediately abstained from voting. The full rewrite of this entry in the station directives can be found here:
[...the Command Staff as a whole carries the authority of the Captain, and can, together, conduct actions that would otherwise require the Captain's approval.] In order for the Command Staff to make a Captain level decision, a unanimous vote in support will be required with at least two (2) able command staff. A single vote in the negative is all that is needed to veto a Captain level decision posed to the Command Staff, however, any Head of Staff may abstain from a vote if they so desire without effecting the outcome. Any votes taken against another Head of Staff will see the implicated party automatically abstained from voting. Additionally, Command Personnel who have been formally detained under orders of the Loyalty Implanted Head of Security will be unable to vote on any Command level decisions until they have have been released and allowed reassume their previous position.
The directive entry regarding 'Promoting a Head of Staff to the position of Acting Captain' is being clarified to require only a majority vote by command. The full rewrite of this entry in the station directives can be found here:
[...There exists no preference towards anyone Department Head of Staff to attain the role before the others.] Unlike a typical Command decision, the vote to appoint an Acting Captain does not have to be unanimous. Only a majority of votes is required to appoint a Head of Staff to Acting Captain.

Code Yellow is being added in order to allow security, medical, engineering or any other relevant departments prepare and act accordingly for the elimination of any biohazard threats without removing the crew's right to privacy and letting security conduct searches at will. The announcement in writing for Code Yellow can be found here:
The station is now under an elevated alert status due to a confirmed biological hazard. All crew are to follow command instruction in order to ensure a safe return to standard operations.

A modification will be made to security authority under code blue so that searches may be halted by Command Staff with authority over the intended search areas. Security will be expected to provide a probable cause for the search, otherwise they risk being stonewalled. Abuse of this authority by Command Staff will see the abusers severely punished.
A requirement will be made that security cannot with-hold information regarding a search from the Head of the Department being searched or the individual crew receiving a body search.
Neglect of Duty is being re-written to include a clause against Command Personnel. Command may be convicted of neglect of duty only through a Captain level decision, a unanimous vote in approval by all other heads will be required should no Captain or Acting Captain be present.



DTG: 25-09:40-TAU CETI STANDARD-09-2459

SIGN: CCIAA Lyla Rathen

Link to comment
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...