[1 Dismissal Vote] [Policy] Change Suspension Forms to Require Captain OR IAA Signature

[Azande]

At the moment, any Head of Staff is able to completely suspend the contract of any crew member in their department, suspension being the more serious form of a demotion, in which someone's ID is wiped of access, and their account is either frozen or has their pay withdrawn.

I believe it would make more sense if the form required a Head of Staff's Signature and an IAA's signature, or a Head of Staff's and the Captain's, but not exclusively, so like the Avowal form it'd be like where either the Captain or an IAA can sign:

Captain/Internal Affairs Signature: [field]

This means a suspension must go through one of two trusted corporate officials as well as the department supervisor, rather than just that supervisor.

[Azande]

[mention]ForgottenTraveller[/mention] @ing you since you're the leading NCF decision maker.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

We never have IAA. This would make suspensions extremely difficult, and I will just 'demote' people to 'assistant' instead. Is this an intended affect?

Suspension is superficially a flavorful version of demoting to assistant, but making it immediately obvious that the person in question did such a naughty thing that they can't even be an assistant.

[whiterabit]

I don't see a huge need for this. As jackboot wrote, IAA are incredibly rare, and there's still a lot of shifts without a captain. I don't think the need to suspend a person should be enough to warrant promoting an acting captain.

The current system of allowing heads to manage their own department staff seems perfectly fine to me. If a Head of Staff determines a member of their staff to be so inept that they require an immediate suspension, so be it. Appeal to the captain is an option, worst case it's only for a single shift.

[Azande]

Captain is actually usually almost always on according to Arrow's statistics

"Regarding that there is no hop and qm in most of the rounds:

From the last 100 rounds, there was no hop AND no qm in 13.

And the number where there is no hop, no qm and no captain is even lower."

If a non-antag is being suspended, it is something CCIA should at least be glancing at and should be used more seriously than it is.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

What about demotions to assistant?

[alexpkeaton]

What is a department head in charge of then, if not his own people?

I think they should be able to suspend anyone in their department, however such a decision could be overruled directly by a Captain, or indirectly through an IA investigation.

[ForgottenTraveller]

What is a department head in charge of then, if not his own people?

I think they should be able to suspend anyone in their department, however such a decision could be overruled directly by a Captain, or indirectly through an IA investigation.

^^This is why suspension exists.

Now to break down the initial part.

"At the moment, any Head of Staff is able to completely suspend the contract of any crew member in their department,"

Correct. Mostly, they suspend the activity of the employee, not the contract.

"suspension being the more serious form of a demotion,"

Wrong. As stated in the form (Spoiler below.) Suspension in that form is temporary and removes them from ACTIVE status. It does not change their employment role. Which is why it is a suspension. It suspends activity.

"in which someone's ID is wiped of access,"

Correct. As they are no longer on active duty they may as well be a visitor, an inactive staff visitors don't get their role access if they are inactive station.

 

"and their account is either frozen or has their pay withdrawn."

Wrong, so wrong that if you are doing this in a suspension you should be getting punished. In real life there is suspension without pay, and suspension with pay. Your employer can stop new money coming in, it can't freeze your damn assets.

 

"I believe it would make more sense if the form required a Head of Staff's Signature and an IAA's signature, or a Head of Staff's and the Captain's, but not exclusively, so like the Avowal form it'd be like where either the Captain or an IAA can sign:

Captain/Internal Affairs Signature: [field]

This means a suspension must go through one of two trusted corporate officials as well as the department supervisor, rather than just that supervisor."

No. The IAA is the on board personage for RECOURSE in an unjust suspension. They cannot be a neutral third party if they are involved in the suspension.

The suspension is meant to be used like a floor manager sending an employee home if they are being difficult or come to work in an unreasonable state, and then later report that to their higher ups. It is unfortunate that server culture has used the demotion in its place instead, forgetting about this form. Even I have been guilty of that as a HoD.

Suspensions should be used far more often than 'demotions to assistants' than they currently are. With demotions being within departments.

 

[small]

NanoTrasen Inc.

Civilian Branch of Operation

Form 0105

Suspension

---

---

Facility: NSS Aurora

Date: [date]

Index: [field]

This form permits the temporary suspension of the active employment status of the denoted employee of the NanoTrasen Civilian Branch. This action may be undertaken under orders from a Command Staff member.

Employee: [field]

Current Assignment: [field]

Reason:

• [field]

Supervising Head of Staff: [field]

Head of Personnel/Captain Stamp[/small]

[Azande]

No. The IAA is the on board personage for RECOURSE in an unjust suspension. They cannot be a neutral third party if they are involved in the suspension.

Why are IAA allowed to sign off on an avowal then? I assume because before doing so, they are assumed to investigate the subject and review and agree the individual is worthy of an avowal? Or was adding IAA to the avowal form a mistake?

If suspension is how you say it is, then yes this suggestion can be closed by devs (after you answer above plz?)

[ForgottenTraveller]

The avowal was written by Lore. So I cannot cite the original intent but when accepting it I broke down the signatory sections such.

Vaurca signature: [field] - Asset party

Head of Staff signature: [field] - Liable party

Captain/Internal Affairs signature: [field] - 3rd Party Witness

Once again they are acting as a third party neutral. Technically anyone could be the 3rd party witness, but the corp wants loyalty implanted personnel not directly involved in the department. Which is why in this case the captain is a viable witness.

[Scheveningen]

I don't think a non-captain head of staff should be able to completely suspend the contract (i.e., completely fire) someone from the corporation. It doesn't seem fathomable that they possess that authority to remove someone from the corporation's employment.

[Azande]

My idea was that if you want to remove someone from the round, it should at least go through two people..

[whiterabit]

I don't think a non-captain head of staff should be able to completely suspend the contract (i.e., completely fire) someone from the corporation. It doesn't seem fathomable that they possess that authority to remove someone from the corporation's employment.

 

They don't. Suspensions/Demotions filed by station command are only for the shift.

[DatBerry]

mechanics wise, terminating an ID is what suspends their account, it also removes their records I believe, suspending someone should be just demotion to assistant with title change.

[Arrow768]

Captain is actually usually almost always on according to Arrow's statistics

"Regarding that there is no hop and qm in most of the rounds:

From the last 100 rounds, there was no hop AND no qm in 13.

And the number where there is no hop, no qm and no captain is even lower."

If a non-antag is being suspended, it is something CCIA should at least be glancing at and should be used more seriously than it is.

 

Well, while these stats were correct at the time for the intended purpose, they cant be used here.

Simply because they only say something about the number of rounds there has been a HoP or QM.

They dont mention anything about the number of rounds there has been a captain.

So if there are 100 rounds and there is no captain in 99 of them the stats mentioned above are still correct.

Therefore they are irrelevant for the current discussion.

[ForgottenTraveller]

I posted the form in a spoiler in my first comment. Read it.

While it doesn't require two signatures it does need stamping of a head of personnel/captain.

Leaving the only two single person loops as the head of personnel can stamp their own form, where in personnel are and managing them is their entire job and we give them access to the accounts, which they could rob blind. So if you can't trust them with a form in good faith, what can you reasonably assign to the HoP role that isn't a glorified QM.

And captains. The captain has authority over their vessel/station to make general decisions about it's day to day running, he doesn't need to be chasing stamps.

Outside of those two, each form has oversight of a second person in a command level position.

An while I haven't really played much in the last month, there wasn't grave abuse of the authority of the head of personnel before, and I have not heard of more. Nor seen any IRs. An this policy seems to just be 'Mah IAA powah'.

If there has been a giant fall from grace in that time, I want statements because otherwise we are fixing what ain't broke to fuck over those playing captain and head of personnel to make their rounds less fun.

While command roles have benefits they also come with obligations and responsibility. Which can make aspects of the role less fun. This suggestion would toss more effort on a HoP or captain into the obligation and responsibility pile, removing potential fun for many.

And as you were harping on role statistics before, it kind of shows we have an issue with people wanting to play those two roles for the lack of appeal and fun. So it may be worth reviewing making things more appealing for those roles. Not making it worse for them for the sake of IAA powah.

Everything is connected, and one policy change can have knock on consequences. I don't take them lightly. This one needs to prove it's worth and need. Or consign it too the bin.

[Azande]

I posted the form in a spoiler in my first comment. Read it.

While it doesn't require two signatures it does need stamping of a head of personnel/captain.

Leaving the only two single person loops as the head of personnel can stamp their own form, where in personnel are and managing them is their entire job and we give them access to the accounts, which they could rob blind. So if you can't trust them with a form in good faith, what can you reasonably assign to the HoP role that isn't a glorified QM.

 

When asked about this about a year ago, I asked about the HoP's relation to managing personnel. I was told by Admins at the time that the Head of Personnel CANNOT deny processing a demotion/promotion/suspension form if a head of staff is ordering it for their own personnel. Unless you are formally changing this to mean that the Head of Personnel CAN and SHOULD review any requests from Heads, I need to default to my previously known knowledge.

This is not about IAA power, this is about lessening the power of whitelisted players to affect/ruin a player's round, and while it may not happen often - it has happened.

[ForgottenTraveller]

You are confounding review and veto power. A HoP is expected to facilitate the expert judgement of another head that an employee is not fit for their department. Denying that on its face, just promotes in fighting and obstructionism. Review in this sense is a post action issue to work against it after the action has been taken if you find it unjust. If the employee in question has been suspended and ordered to leave by a head of staff regarding it and important that they do, it stands as a valid order, if a HoP then denies it, it prevents the employee whether they want it or not from complying with a legal order. Turning it into a potential case for their arrest if they come back unchanged.

Things should be reviewed and acted upon, and then challenged if found sub standard.

And whitelisted players get the power to ruin/affect players rounds due to having the obligation to facilitate player's rounds and make them fun, sometimes to save 1 or more player's rounds possibly even their own, or at the expense of their own enjoyment another's has to be ruined.

You are proposing obligation without power or privilege, and while the obligation is ignored and/or power and privilege is not often abused as you have stated, you want to affect those in the more often category negatively in a blanket action where there are more effective targeted means of managing these exceptions.

In essence punishing all whitelist players for the actions of a few. That can and have been handled via other methods

Once again, and for the last time. I am saying this policy needs to prove its worth (evidence and statements would be best) or it is for the bin.

The positive to negative weighting on overall gameplay for this change is negative with everything I am aware of and everything presented. In short it lacks merit to be even considered actionable or up for trial in my books.

[Faris]

Captains can already veto or deny a suspension per their own review and IAA can in their own way provide insight, opinions and advice on the topic of an employees suspension.

Not supporting this, voting for dismissal.

[LordFowl]

Voting for dismissal based on the above. Jumping through hoops is already tedious enough in paperwork simulator 2456. Binning.