Head of Staff Notes in Employee Records

[Azande]

 

Implement a system in which heads of staff can attach notes to employment records. The content of these notes could range from a comment about their behavior, a recommendation of dismissal, or even a commendation for a job well done.

The ultimate goal is to give heads of staff more power in how their department runs. The notes would be most useful for CCIAA investigating an incident report, or heads of staff making decisions about the character (i.e., access changes or allowing them to join the department)

The obvious concerns have been the threat of abuse by heads of staff, but multiple notes added by one head would indicate a bias, and thus cast suspicion on that head's judgement, but complaints from multiple sources would be more damning for the person in question.

The main balance in mind was that IAAs would be able to, and maybe even expected to, review these notes for validity and truthfulness. Hence, any note added by a head of staff must be thorough and informative. Vague notes should be subject to immediate deletion upon discovery

- [mention]Not Megatron[/mention] , SCCN Member 'Caleb Green, Head of Security'

The suggestion above originally was proposed in the General Convention of the Station Command Coordination Network, and after thorough two-day discussion and refinement in the convention, was then moved to a vote for endorsement.. Thank you to various SCCN Members for formulating this idea for proposal.

The membership was given seventy-two (72) hours to vote. All votes cast, were cast in the Affirmativ. The body of 40 official members and accepted GenCon participants has therefore, formally endorsed this suggestion. All opinions of SCCN members are their own, and they are welcome to share dissenting opinions if they voted against endorsement.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Guest

[Mcspizzy]

I probably shouldnt have to ask, but these notes will be visible on the WI, yes?

[Azande]

That would be intended, yes - A player has a right to know what is ICly on their record. However, they would not be able to remove these notes manually, they would need to ask a CCIA, the writing Head, or an IAA/Captain to look into the situation if they disagree with a note.

[Mcspizzy]

I should also add, that there is the problem of heads adding notes for antag related sutuations, how do you plan to adress this? Because i can already see a head adding notes to someone who is an antag, or delt with one it some way or another, unless these notes can somehow be added after the round ends.

[DatBerry]

Highly disagree with them being irremovable by the player, security incidents would have a higher priority over some head of staff's opinion.

You can argue security is not whitelisted, but security charges need a good enough IC reason or they would be handled by staff if they arrest and incarnate someone, a head of staff giving his opinion and sticking it on someone's head is not an issue that can be dealt with by staff, unless you want Heads of Staff whitelists stripped over giving slightly offensive / not so true opinions on employees.

[Azande]

The idea is it'd be handled ICly. CCIA/IAA reviewing them if there are issues, a character would have the full right to go to either to review a note. If a Head IS found abusing the note, then easy - they get punished.

As for the antag things, if(faction=antag) then command notes don't save.

[Fortport]

I love this idea, as it applies more weight to the actions of your character and so on. If someone's bad at their job, there could be real consequences. Whereas if they're good at it, it might end in them getting promotions and so on. Great stuff.

I mean, that's the idea we have now but this just adds to that system.

[Saudus]

As a regular IAA player I would love this. It gets boring after a while doing staff reviews on characters with damn near nothing in their records. And even with the records it's just background info from non station related stuff.

As long as you can't permanently save the notes on antags. As long as you can have notes removed ICly by HoP, IAA/CCIAA and the Captain (they seem like the most logical ones, could of course have it so they can be removed by other heads as well) with some kind of CCIAA directive regarding these notes and criminal charges on neglect of duty for really stupid ones. And so that antag heads can only temporarily add/remove the notes (i.e. an antag HoP can't add/remove it permanently but only during the round) or if failing that so that they can't add/remove it at all.

Would make more of a story develop between shifts, would make heads of staff more about administration and leadership (and less of a super version of the department role) and would make IAA even more fun.

[ben10083]

I like this idea, this can allow heads to put things as records like: "Served as interim HoS for a shift on (date)" for extended rounds. Overall it helps heads make notes that can help other heads know who they are dealing with when they look at his/her/it's records.

[Arrow768]

I can see both sides of allowing a player to delete or not to delete the records of their own chars.

It would prevent constant troublemakers from just voiding whatever they have done.

However, its important to consider that not every action (even as non Antag) is canon as Antags may have influenced their decisions.

The only "safe" solution would be to allow entries only on extended rounds, but that is not really feasible.

Therefore I´d suggest the following solution:

• Allow Heads of Staff to add permanent records via the employment console. (Might just do the same for medical while I am at it)
  
• Add two buttons to the WI that allow the Player to request a review of a entry by IA or Server Staff (For both cases a reason is required)
  
• Only IA will have the option to mark all entries as invalid (and that only ICly)
  
• Entries marked as invalid, still show up, but with the note that the record has been invalidated by IA
  
• Entries removed by staff do not show up Ingame (CCIA will have the option to choose between invalidating or removing)
  

 

We should also get some input from [mention]Sharp[/mention] and [mention]Garnascus[/mention]

[Garnascus]

I will give this a proper reply tomorrow morning sometime. I think i am more keen on players themselves not being able to remove them. Its technically against the rules when people remove canon security incidents from their records. All parties involved must agree for any conflict to not be canon. Unfortunately theirs no system that notifies us when players do it and theirs no easy way to investigate it unless security regulars or HoPs are perusing records and notice an incident that was recorded is now gone.

I do not even know if i like it yet though.

[Saudus]

Therefore I´d suggest the following solution:

• Allow Heads of Staff to add permanent records via the employment console. (Might just do the same for medical while I am at it)
  
• Add two buttons to the WI that allow the Player to request a review of a entry by IA or Server Staff (For both cases a reason is required)
  
• Only IA will have the option to mark all entries as invalid (and that only ICly)
  
• Entries marked as invalid, still show up, but with the note that the record has been invalidated by IA
  
• Entries removed by staff do not show up Ingame (CCIA will have the option to choose between invalidating or removing)
  

 

Yes, this. Would add so much to the between shifts RP.

[Garnascus]

The ability for heads of staff to attach files or notes to employee records is something i can definitely support. Theres lots of discussion that needs to happen about who can remove them and how they are appealed though. I am not keen on creating more head for staff departments to deal with. i AM keen on giving IA more things to do.

[N8-Toe]

as a player I am unsure how comfortable I am with another player being able to change my records and other things with heavy IC consequence without my approval and also me being unable to remove it. It discourages me from trying things or RPing things that may conflict with a head of staff IC or OOC for fear of retribution. I would support this fully if players could remove them.

[whiterabit]

Oh no a subordinate fearing repercussion from acting against their boss. What sweet hell is this?

[Azande]

The ability for heads of staff to attach files or notes to employee records is something i can definitely support. Theres lots of discussion that needs to happen about who can remove them and how they are appealed though. I am not keen on creating more head for staff departments to deal with. i AM keen on giving IA more things to do.

 

This was discussed in our SCCN debates. Essentially, it was eventually hammered down that Internal Affairs and the Captain would be the on-station individuals able to review and delete notes, with preference to Internal Affairs doing it if present.

Of course, CCIA and Admins would be able to delete them too if they're deemed not appropriate for OOC things.

[Munks]

Given the the "quality" of some of the heads of staff players we have it's completely ridiculous to think heads of staff should basically get their own note system that we can't do shit about but hassle a Captain or IAA to remove. Regardless of how many head of staff players want it. Maybe when you guys stop threatening people with firing and slander charges for being rude to you or pointing out your mistakes. This is way too much responsibility for one simple whitelist.

[N8-Toe]

Oh no a subordinate fearing repercussion from acting against their boss. What sweet hell is this?

 

Yes what sweet hell is this when only one side of an issue will be logged, where a player who may be angry with me in the moment can take an action that will affect my character forever. This is to broad of powers to be given IC to a group of players.

[Saudus]

I would be overjoyed when playing IAA if I got to do one of these cases, would not be a hassle. I would like to make frivolous/obviously wrong notes grounds for some sort of legal punishment. Maybe even grounds for OOC complaints and de-whitelisting.

[Garnascus]

If heads of staff use the feature in good faith it could work well. I agree that the point of "only one side of an issue is logged". You do not have access to round logs IC so if you get a note against you IC it immediately puts you at a disadvantage even if its wrong. You have appeal it yourself. I do not know if that is healthy for the game. In theory i like the idea.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I have to agree with Garnascus for once in my life. I can include whatever bias I want in a note and it will not be visible to the player. That is not very fair to them, especially since heads of staff do not have the same level of oversight and responsibility of impartiality as fully fledged admin staff do.

I think the best method of removing as much bias as feasible as we can is to let Command leave notes but from a list of options. So Command chooses to leave a note and can choose the options of putting in:

-Does not play well with others.

-Causes regular security incidents.

-Needs supervision.

-Not qualified for Interim Head roles.

-Drinks on the job.

-Mild xenophobia.

-Severe xenophobia.

-Has the most AMAZING and beautiful buttcheeks.

-etc etc etc

And like medical records, each note is logged with the name of the Head who left it.

These can be little warning signs to look out for without the added baggage of the Head's 2 paragraphs of justifying why the employee sucks and has them literally shaking.

[Skull132]

Given the the "quality" of some of the heads of staff players we have it's completely ridiculous to think heads of staff should basically get their own note system that we can't do shit about but hassle a Captain or IAA to remove. Regardless of how many head of staff players want it. Maybe when you guys stop threatening people with firing and slander charges for being rude to you or pointing out your mistakes. This is way too much responsibility for one simple whitelist.

 

Look at it from this perspective: if a shitty head of staff is writing notes which consistently get contested, for valid reasons, then staff will have a higher incentive to remove his whitelist. There's also the option of roleplay via bribing/extorting/whatevering a head of staff to leave positive remarks on your thing.

In general, if the records are public to the character owners, and there exist quick report buttons, it should be fine-ish. At least it'll be better than having the NCCC or whatever they are keep traffic like that in their own little discord.

[Saudus]

To dispel some fears, couldn't the round number and time be attached to the note? Hence it will be easier to investigate for server staff. Plus it would have the added benefit of weeding out people inappropriate for head of staff position who currently wouldn't be detected.

I don't really like the pre-configured options idea, as it basically removes any chance of nuance to the note. Also, if we really are this worried about the repercussions of the notes, then maybe further limit which staff can attach them or make it so that it needs two heads of staff?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Either with a fully custom field or a list of selectable notes, the game-id could be included and easily handwaved as simply being an identification hash for record-keeping.

We already have security records which you select from a list of charges on the processing console. It would replicate that mechanic.

The nuances of a note are the bias of the Head of Staff. I personally feel I could make a more informed call if I had a series of short pre-determined comments rather than a bunch of long-winded incident reports. If they are custom, at least include a 200 character limit or something. That's a little longer than a tweet.

If it requires two heads of staff it will literally never get use. We use two heads of staff to swipe for combat borgs and ERT - this is hardly that dramatic or important.

[ben10083]

If it requires two heads of staff it will literally never get use. We use two heads of staff to swipe for combat borgs and ERT - this is hardly that dramatic or important.

 

It also has a swipe to revoke access requirement for maintenance, and when was the last time THAT was used?