Jump to content
Theplahunter

[Denied] SovietCyanides CCIA Application

Recommended Posts

CCIA Staff Application

 

Basic Information



Byond key: SovietCyanide



Character names: Nicholas Hassen, Feliks Wojcik, Jakub Andrychowski.



Age: 18



Timezone: U.S Central



What times are you most available?: Usually mid day (12-2) to late afternoon (3-9) and graveyard hours (10:00 PM to 5:00 AM is what I consider graveyard)




Experience


How long have you played SS13?: 8 years


How long have you played on Aurora?: Around 2 (with 4 years total time registered)


How active on the forums, discord and/or server are you? I am decently active on the server and discord, and I have about 100+ posts on the forums.



Have you ever been banned, and if so, how long and why?: Yes, I was banned in 2016 for extremely toxic behavior permanently, which was appealed successfully as of 2/2/2018.



Have you ever volunteered as moderation staff for any other servers, SS13 or otherwise?: Yes, I was an admin on New Eden for 2-3 months before the Eden split, and I have some minor experience on Garrys mod servers as an administrator.



Do you have any other experience that you believe would be relevant to a position in the CCIA?: Yes, back from 2014 to 2016 I mained IAA, and I spend a lot of my time as a writer and formerly an application processor on a now defunct Garrys mod serious roleplay community. I also was the head commissar and 2nd in command overall of the Russian MP faction in Nebulous WW3RP, which involved a lot of paperwork and conflict resolution, as well as investigation into issues between enlisted, NCOs, and even COs.


Personality



Why do you want to join the CCIA?: Because back in 2014 through 2016 I mained IAA, and I found it extremely enjoyable. Progressing the round, making sure everybody was having fun by dealing with people who got too out of line without directly breaking a law, and generally filing paperwork, which I found oddly satisfying at times.



What do you think are the most important qualities for a CCIA Agent to possess?: Being impartial is very valuable as an agent, to not allow emotions or OOC/IC feelings to impact a ruling. As well as good logic skills and an imagination to progress a round for an antagonist/player and to review reports that might have a flaw or two in their arguments.



What do you think the purpose of a CCIA Agent is in an ongoing round?: To act as a representative of Central command via faxes and general fluff announcements, such as reminders about station directives and other interesting bits of fluff. As well as coming on station as needed to interview crew for incident reports and any other mishaps that may happen.



What do you think the purpose of a CCIA Agent is outside of the server?: To guide newer players on the finer points of corporate regulations and proper etiquette and actions from an in character perspective as well as the handling of incident reports in a quick, proper, and investigative manner.



How do you handle stress?: I believe I can handle stress pretty well, taking a deep breath and focusing on the key problem instead of getting worked up over it.



How well do you work autonomously?: I think I can work without guidance pretty well, formerly leading an entire subfaction that had a lot of authority without orders and guidance from any superiors.


Additional Notes: None currently.

Share this post


Link to post

This application is too soon after your ban appeal. I cannot personally trust you with any semblance of authority or power over other players with your past in mind. Considering the whole ordeal behind your appeal.


Personally, try again much later.


-1

Share this post


Link to post

This application is too soon after your ban appeal. I cannot personally trust you with any semblance of authority or power over other players with your past in mind. Considering the whole ordeal behind your appeal.


Personally, try again much later.


-1

 

It's been two entire years since the original ban. Granted it has only been a week since the appeal but plahunter has shown consistently that he's invested in Aurora again and has been eager to prove himself. I think he shows good faith and commitment and putting himself in a staff position would give him even more investment in our community. +1

Share this post


Link to post


It's been two entire years since the original ban. Granted it has only been a week since the appeal but plahunter has shown consistently that he's invested in Aurora again and has been eager to prove himself. I think he shows good faith and commitment and putting himself in a staff position would give him even more investment in our community. +1

 

I vehemently disagree. His unban was not the first time. The reason it's been two years is because his unban requests was denied. He was given a chance in the past and he broke that trust. He was only recently given "another" chance, he's still on thin ice for any repeat behavior.


I prefer he stays a member of community and away from staff postings for a while before this notion is entertained. I'm sure you're familiar with what happens when people are brought onboard that are under "parole". Skull has specifically stated that if any reoccurrences of his past behaviour becomes visible, they will not be given any further chances.


If he proves that he is able to stay away from his old habits over a reasonable period of time judge, then I'd be willing to consider it.

Share this post


Link to post

I do agree with Abo. They can prove themselves as a stable, positive member of our community first.

The enthusiasm for wanting to do more for the community is commendable though, but still too soon.


In the future, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post

It's been two entire years since the original ban. Granted it has only been a week since the appeal but plahunter has shown consistently that he's invested in Aurora again and has been eager to prove himself. I think he shows good faith and commitment and putting himself in a staff position would give him even more investment in our community. +1

 

Can we please not leave our pragmatist shells in favour of having blind faith in people?


Here's two principles, both of which exist due to prior incidents, accepting this application would violate:

  • No staff member should be hired before they've spent, optimally, three months on the server actively playing. Plahunter doesn't even have one month spent on the server. And no, his previous activity doesn't matter because it's been two years and shit's changed a whole lot. Who knows, he might not even like it here after his second or third month.
  • No staff member should be hired after being recently unbanned from a two year ban, which was applied for actually hostile behaviour. Specially since the unban in question had a little "but" attached to it as well.

 

There has been no time to properly evaluate his conduct. And the little snippets I've been seeing don't impress me, as far as being staff is concerned.

Not only would accepting this cause potential difficulty for the staff, it would put undue strain onto Plahunter himself and cause him to do stupid shit. He should be given time to settle down before such considerations should even be taken with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post

It's been two entire years since the original ban. Granted it has only been a week since the appeal but plahunter has shown consistently that he's invested in Aurora again and has been eager to prove himself. I think he shows good faith and commitment and putting himself in a staff position would give him even more investment in our community. +1

 

Can we please not leave our pragmatist shells in favour of having blind faith in people?


Here's two principles, both of which exist due to prior incidents, accepting this application would violate:

  • No staff member should be hired before they've spent, optimally, three months on the server actively playing. Plahunter doesn't even have one month spent on the server. And no, his previous activity doesn't matter because it's been two years and shit's changed a whole lot. Who knows, he might not even like it here after his second or third month.
  • No staff member should be hired after being recently unbanned from a two year ban, which was applied for actually hostile behaviour. Specially since the unban in question had a little "but" attached to it as well.

 

There has been no time to properly evaluate his conduct. And the little snippets I've been seeing don't impress me, as far as being staff is concerned.

Not only would accepting this cause potential difficulty for the staff, it would put undue strain onto Plahunter himself and cause him to do stupid shit. He should be given time to settle down before such considerations should even be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Pragmatism should always be balanced with assumptions of good faith and vice versa. There are genuine concerns about how quick he applied for a staff position after coming back from a long permaban. I am giving my +1 because I have always seen such eagerness as a quality in a prospective staffer. It is just my single +1 and not a ruling on the app. Having more time to evaluate his conduct is a genuine concern, I am simply saying I personally take an eagerness to participate in a staff position and 'put in' time to the server as innate good qualities in an applicant.

Share this post


Link to post

Interview with the applicant:

 

[8:11 PM] Synnono: Alright, we can get going then. There are a few normal questions we ask that I'll start with.


[8:11 PM] Theplahunter: Sure.


[8:11 PM] Synnono: Answer however you think is most appropriate with the information you have. No need to rush.


[8:11 PM] Theplahunter: alright.


[8:11 PM] Synnono: 1. During a round of Ninja, you are faxed by Station Command inquiring about an “inspector” who claims to have been sent by the company to evaluate each of the station's departments. How do you respond, and why?


[8:15 PM] Theplahunter: I would most likely respond with a semi-plausible reasoning for the 'inspector' to be there. Possibly an incident with human trafficking, drug smuggling, or customs check due to a nearby report of increased criminal activity. I would not say the Ninja is directly sent by NT for the express reason of inspecting the Aurora, but give a plausible enough angle for the antag to build off of and work his way through with creative thinking with enough wiggle room to make a more interesting round that could increase interaction with all members of crew. (Organ smuggling - Ninja could go through medical. Drug smuggling - Cargo/service) leaving the specific subject of what the 'inspector' is searching for so he's not railroaded into playing one specific angle and he can choose his own.


[8:16 PM] Synnono: 2. During a round of Crossfire, you are faxed by Station Command about a team of mercenaries who have reported a band of pirates operating in the area. They wish to offer their services to the station as additional security. Command is asking you for your advice on the situation. How do you respond, and why?


[8:20 PM] Theplahunter: I would recomend a close check of mercenary credentials and demands, approaching the situation with slight skepticism as the mercenaries could be an 'inside team' for the pirates but not outright stating they could be. A course of action would be to have close monitoring of the mercenaries if the captain/station command does agree to the terms that the mercenaries have put on the table, such as one or two security 'piggybacking' with the mercs to make sure they aren't wandering off to scout or pilfer. If the demands are reasonable, and High command truely believes that they require the extra assistance, I would advise them to hire the mercenaries as an extra protection procedure but leave it up to command so the players can decide how the round goes and not order the automatic denial or acceptance. Basically tell them the possible pros-and-cons and let them make an educated guess for themselves so the player drives the round and directs their decision to make things interesting.


[8:21 PM] Synnono: Alrighty.


[8:22 PM] Synnono: 3. You receive an Emergency Broadcast System message from the station’s Artificial Intelligence. It claims that there is an emergency situation, and requests an immediate ERT deployment. How do you respond?


[8:22 PM] Theplahunter: Can I ask if there's an alert level and station command on board or are the questions all the information I have right then to make the decision.


[8:23 PM] Synnono: Agents can check the alert level of the station, but all you were told by the AI is what's in the question.


[8:23 PM] Theplahunter: Alright.


[8:27 PM] Theplahunter: Assuming the alert level is 'green' - I would send a response stating that with no escalated alert and the station AI contacting central instead of a proper station command/crew member, as well as the vagueness of the 'emergency situation' which could end with a lack of preparation (such as a security team for an engineering incident, a medical team for a security problem, or an engineering team when the problem is a lot of medical personel are needed to treat a mass amount of injured) I would advise the crew in general to respond with a more descriptive situation of there emergency through command channels and to raise the alert if there really is an emergency situation that requires proper ERT involvement. It is too much of a risk of company resources to send an ERT if it is a false alarm, a faulty AI message, or a team with the wrong gear in a certain situation. Afterwards I would await to see if my advice is heeded and proper procedures are followed to request an ERT, or if there is a catastrophic situation/issue such as no command staff present, which is unlikely to be on alert level 'green'.


[8:29 PM] Synnono: Last situation regarding in-game stuff:


[8:29 PM] Synnono: 4. You receive a fax from the Internal Affairs Agent, who claims that the Captain has been abusing his authority by removing all of the vending machines from the station and has demoted an engineer for littering. How do you respond?


[8:35 PM] Theplahunter: Considering the unusual nature of the situation, I would take in all probabilities, such as the literring becoming 'excessive' or misuse of the vending machines. But considering the report was forwarded by an official IAA agent and it does not seem like a normal punishment to demote a valuble engineer for simple littering as well as removing sources of quick food/drink for staff who do not have time to come by the bar/kitchen to get a full, proper meal. I would deem a 'just-in-case' quick visit to the station to check on the severity of the situation, inspecting the captains behavior and getting all sides as a personal inspection to make sure all stories are clear and if the situation is actually a total abuse of power as I personally believe an in-person view so I can personally gather all the information and read the situation is valuble due to the severeity of the accusation.


[8:36 PM] Synnono: Alrighty. Moving on to some off-server stuff.


[8:36 PM] Synnono: 5. In your opinion, how much of a role should Central Command play in the affairs of the station? When is it appropriate for them to directly intervene, and how much should they attempt to shape the round when they do?


[8:42 PM] Theplahunter: I think Central command should play more of a guidance role and a corporate advisor instead of an overwhelming commanding force. If situations can be easily solvable 'in house' then mere advice is more than enough, as well as reminders of corporate regulations and directives. If the situation is truly dire though, a direct intervention via CCIA inspection due to situations that may be extreme negligence/abuse of power that can be inspected via interviews and visual observations, and ERTs if the problem requires more than a single guy with a universal recorder and an investigative mind. The goal of CCIA inspections should be to find the truth and come to a reasonable resolution following company guidelines, while ERT situations should be towards crew and station safety, providing a bit of an extra challenge for a competent antag(s) who have done 'well' enough to require direct central intervention, or to continue the round for players by repairing breaches, dealing with security issues, and providing proper medical aid. 'direct intervention' could also refer back to the faxes from the station, such as verification of 'inspectors', which is more of a 'prompt' to propel the round and expand whatever gimmick there may be.


[8:47 PM] Synnono: 6. What do you believe is the purpose of the Incident Report system?


[8:50 PM] Theplahunter: To be an in character way to deal with issues that cannot be solved in the current round, such as extreme negligence/incompetence, repeat offenses of harassment and violence, and many other issues. It's more of an HR report if people get too far out of line while not being directly rule breaking. Things such as repeated insults in character, mild violence, poor job performance, they are not OOCly rule breaking but ICly a problem and that is where Incident reports come in so it can be handled in a completely in character manner and hopefully stopped.


[8:52 PM] Synnono: 7. When should a character receive significant disciplinary action (such as a demotion), as opposed to a lighter response such as a warning or retraining? Under what circumstances would you consider terminating a character's employment?


[8:56 PM] Theplahunter: Characters should most likely recieve disciplinary action such as docking pay, suspension, demotion, after repeat offenses or -extremely- poor acts of self control/behavior/ability. Most minor issues such as a one time mix up with a situation, or improper conduct with another crew member should be met with a verbal reprimand, written warning, or retraining depending on the severity. If after multiple warnings or re-trainings and even severe punishment such as demotions or suspension, and they show absoloutely NO chance of improving or stopping their terrible behavior (such as verbally harassing someone or continuously spiting them in obvious ways to incite anger/violence) termination would be most likely the only option after all other options to try and reign them in have failed.


[8:58 PM] Synnono: 8. After taking an IR of your own and completing your interviews, you find that an officer escalated to a forceful arrest when a crewmember resisted detainment. The original reason for the arrest is deemed invalid, however, the officer argues that in resisting arrest the crewman legitimized the detainment. What do you think would be the best way to resolve this case?


[9:03 PM] Theplahunter: Considering they had no reason to be actually arrested, I find it highly doubtful they can be charged for resisting arrest when they had no other crime comitted and the officer seemingly had zero qualms escalating to force instead of attempting to properly deal with the detainment via words and peaceful resolution. Although I do see an issue with resisting arrest even though 'supposedly' there was no reason for it. The charge for resisting arrest would be dismissed, but both men would get verbal warnings and possible light retraining on proper conduct on the side of the detainer and the detainee. The crewmember committed no crime but still acted improperly and should learn how to properly cooperate and resolve the mistake, and the officer should not have escalated to strong force so quickly.


[9:05 PM] Synnono: Alrighty. That's all for the typical things on the app. I have two others for you, for now:


[9:05 PM] Theplahunter: Alright, hit me.


[9:05 PM] Synnono: 9. In your application, you wrote that you want to join CCIA because you enjoyed IAA roleplay and progressing the round. Since this is already something you can do with an IAA character and a command whitelist, why do you want to take this extra step and join the staff team?


[9:09 PM] Theplahunter: Because i've already made the step of being a simple IAA, and taking the next rung up to CCIA where I can make more of an impact and help people, as well as help progress the round and make things enjoyable for all parties involved is something I feel I can do to give back to the community. Helping with IRs, coming aboard to deal with inspections and encourage more interaction, and being there to propel a round to new levels of excitement and enjoyment that it might not have gotten sounds like something I would enjoy. I could go with the command whitelist but I am confident in my ability to do more, and take the next step to make situations even more enjoyable than normal IAA procedure and deal with problems more intimately so I can help more people in the community than a normal IAA.


[9:10 PM] Synnono: Alright. Lastly,


[9:11 PM] Synnono: 10. How do you respond to people who may have concerns with you joining the team so soon after your second ban appeal?


[9:16 PM] Theplahunter: Well my response is mostly understanding, I completely get their reasoning and their concerns aren't unfounded. I was a quite terrible person who lashed out into the community because I couldn't handle my anger. All I can really say is i've sought help for my issues, i've had self reflection, and I do wish to assure them that 2014 to 2016 will never repeat. It has been a year and a half since my last appeal, and although I can't prove it to them right at this moment, I believe personally i've move past my issues of lashing out and holding grudges. All I want to do is give back to the community, and although I may be throwing my hat into the ring for CCIA a little early for full opinions to be formed I think investing myself into the community with this role I have experience in can give back to those who enjoy this server as much as I do, even if I acted like I hated it and wanted to just be an utter twat (which I was) as a teenager. People may think that I might not like the community and that things have changed, but it's honestly the good hearted community I still remember with people who actually care about roleplay and character development and I don't see any way my views on the server could change. Right now i'm helping with the Dominian lore to invest myself even further.


[9:17 PM] Theplahunter: Don't know what else I can say, really, because I only have my word and that might not mean much to people. But it's all I got and I'm willing to-


[9:17 PM] Theplahunter: excuse me for a second theres something slamming on my window


[9:18 PM] Theplahunter: Anyways, it's all i've got and I want to make it mean something to them by doing this. I remember all the good times I had as IAA, and I want to continue those good times while being a driving force for rounds and a helper.


[9:18 PM] Synnono: Alright then. That's all I've got for now. Any questions for me?

Share this post


Link to post

Give him another month or two to settle in before you consider accepting this. We really shouldn't be making it a thing to welcome certain people onto staff for barely a month after their second permaban for hostile behavior. I don't care if it's plahunter and if he, as an individual, has been behaving. It wouldn't be a very fair standard to be setting.


I'm sure he's been behaving and he sure as hell has changed from my personal perception of how things have gone, but like Skull said, let's be more pragmatic in the sense of giving Pla a bit more time to settle in and hopefully clearing the air with other staffmembers in the same respect so they don't need to worry about trustworthiness.


Just because I was eager to be a moderator once upon a time didn't make the staff at the time be much less cautious in accepting me, considering I was given a two month trial period as a moderator and not just the one. Granted given how I still proceeded through that just fine, I've heard from plenty of people on staff that the extended trial was something they won't do for anyone else again seeing as how it was admittedly quite harsh.


Think it's better to tell someone to reapply later than have them trialed for longer, is what I'm saying. Ideal situation is not to increase the range at which failure could occur and instead make it reasonable enough that if they don't fail in a malicious sense then they should be considered a valued team-member.



Would he be qualified considering the past couple weeks? Maybe. It's a really tiny sample size to go off of and thus not exactly justification to accept him yet. Given more time and seeing how plahunter behaves continually, there would be a larger sample-size to take and make a general guesstimate on whether they check out in terms of koalaficiations.


What I'm saying is wait another month. At most, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I would feel more comfortable if they had more than a couple of weeks of being around. Maybe in a month or so my opinion will change to feeling fine. I don't know right now and that's what bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post

Give him another month or two to settle in before you consider accepting this. We really shouldn't be making it a thing to welcome certain people onto staff for barely a month after their second permaban for hostile behavior. I don't care if it's plahunter and if he, as an individual, has been behaving. It wouldn't be a very fair standard to be setting.


I'm sure he's been behaving and he sure as hell has changed from my personal perception of how things have gone, but like Skull said, let's be more pragmatic in the sense of giving Pla a bit more time to settle in and hopefully clearing the air with other staffmembers in the same respect so they don't need to worry about trustworthiness.


Just because I was eager to be a moderator once upon a time didn't make the staff at the time be much less cautious in accepting me, considering I was given a two month trial period as a moderator and not just the one. Granted given how I still proceeded through that just fine, I've heard from plenty of people on staff that the extended trial was something they won't do for anyone else again seeing as how it was admittedly quite harsh.


Think it's better to tell someone to reapply later than have them trialed for longer, is what I'm saying. Ideal situation is not to increase the range at which failure could occur and instead make it reasonable enough that if they don't fail in a malicious sense then they should be considered a valued team-member.



Would he be qualified considering the past couple weeks? Maybe. It's a really tiny sample size to go off of and thus not exactly justification to accept him yet. Given more time and seeing how plahunter behaves continually, there would be a larger sample-size to take and make a general guesstimate on whether they check out in terms of koalaficiations.


What I'm saying is wait another month. At most, I suppose.

 

Personally I would feel more comfortable if they had more than a couple of weeks of being around. Maybe in a month or so my opinion will change to feeling fine. I don't know right now and that's what bothers me.

 

I understand your concerns on how short it's been and they have very valid points, and I agree maybe it is too quick to apply so soon. And maybe it's right to wait a months time to see if I do slip up, maybe not. But personally I am really eager to help the community and give back, and I feel as if that shouldn't be constrained on how long I've been 'back' so to speak. I came off my 2nd permanent ban after a year and a half of it with no appeal, so I feel like saying 'just coming off' is slightly unfair. I do wish I would be given a chance on this though, as I feel getting into a position where I have responsibilities in the community could motivate me even more to succeed.


Also I may suggest that this is not considered my first week back, considering I have spent another week on the discord before my appeal, it's not server time, but it is time within the community.

Share this post


Link to post
[...] and I feel as if that shouldn't be constrained on how long I've been 'back' so to speak. I came off my 2nd permanent ban after a year and a half of it with no appeal, so I feel like saying 'just coming off' is slightly unfair.

 

I can't really tell if this is the result of my nudge or whether you actually think that. But this seems relatively ignorant of the larger picture and the reasons behind the policies I mentioned earlier (and the feedback others have given). What's been said has been entirely fair, and it is misguided judgement to claim otherwise. You've not played nor actively participated in this community for about 2 or so years. You certainly have not been an active member for three months following your return. A week here or there will not change this fact.

 

I do wish I would be given a chance on this though, as I feel getting into a position where I have responsibilities in the community could motivate me even more to succeed.

 

I might be twisting words a wee bit in saying this, but do not expect a position of responsibility to motivate you to keep your ass in check. It does not work like this. At all. Never will.


Volunteer work is still work. Work is stressful. Stress makes you drop your guard and act out on core personality traits. Saying that you need this dynamic to keep you in check is oxymoronic. If there were one motivational thing about this whole affair, then it could be the prospect of eventually, after you've actually proven yourself to be a stable and well conducted community member to the point where we need no longer question it, being considered for a staff post.

Share this post


Link to post
Volunteer work is still work. Work is stressful. Stress makes you drop your guard and act out on core personality traits.

That is astoundingly accurate.

My main issue that I feel I need to highlight even though I have resigned from the CCIA, and have been trying to avoid tossing in my own two cents to let Synno carry on their succession unimpeded. I am going to grandfather in on this one. Regarding your talk about mained as an IAA.

Why do you want to join the CCIA?: Because back in 2014 through 2016 I mained IAA, and I found it extremely enjoyable. Progressing the round, making sure everybody was having fun by dealing with people who got too out of line without directly breaking a law, and generally filing paperwork, which I found oddly satisfying at times.

So. Overlooking personal issues from dealing with you and ignoring the badmouthing of the Duty Officers, which is the CCIA on reddit. An leaving those aspects out of the quotes.

...Hunter Robinsion was a grudging holding, rogue IA agent fabricating duty officers, lying to command staff. Destruction of evidence. Repeatedly ignoring direct orders from your command structure as a loyalty implanted crew. Violating a cease and desist. Violating a restraining order. Publicly disseminated private personnel records including posting them on newscasters. Forced interviews when he had a conflict of interest. Repeatedly misrepresented facts. Conducting multiple illicit investigations to further his own ends and continually reopened closed and sealed cases despite orders not to...


...Also in canon but not part of his firing. Without any medical training gave psych reviews. Prescribed medication for said reviews. Conducted a live autopsy. Physically attacked a few people in the few weeks he was back.


Fabricated (To the point he may as well chair them). The “Humans against Essel” movement and the “Anti-Essel Coalition.”...

Quoting myself. While a Duty Officer (CCIA Agent)

Excerpts from Re: Theplahunters unban appeal #19

 

Worse than that is. Over-assumes their authourity tries to lay one down and gets backslapped for it by command, occasionally tries to double down. Gets pimpslapped by the CCIA, and in the case of Hunter Robinson. [Perma ban due to other issues repeat step one and two upon returning] Triples down, pinning someone to a wall and threatens to torture them, and is violent in trying to anyone trying to stop him. Then quadruples down making up a fake CCIA to the CCIA Agents, on the record. Pentuples?even a word? down and says the agent he knows ranks higher than the CCIA leader, and no one has the authority to stop him in his quest. He was going to forever prison before they managed to earn another permaban.


Don't be a Hunter Robinson guys. It brings down the whole IAA a notch.

Quoting myself. Again. While CCIA Leader

Excerpt from Re: Remove Internal Affairs or Make Staff Improve It #5


Hunter Robinson and Terrance Frank, were, and remain as infamous examples of how not to IAA. An while you may have had fun. Pointing out that you are the posterchild of what not to do as an IAA, is hardly encouraging. So a more detailed answer on what parts of an IAA and what good parts you could bring from that to the CCIA would not go a miss.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems that the PlaHunter's application has reached a hard impasse and has gone long enough. As a second long-standing CCIAA, I shall now deliver my opinions. P.S. By Plahunter, I mean SovietCyanides. I'm going to give you the ugly truth from me.


After reviewing not only Head Admin but Head Developer and a Former Head CCIAA providing evidences to prior discussion. I am entirely convinced that this is a player that we wouldn't want to have on the team due to their known toxic behavior and a former "posterchild of what not to do as an IAA" as ForgottenTraveller quoted in 2017. If we were to accept this application given after the interview has commenced, our good standing may decay to a neutral standing as our superiors do not agree with Plahunter's promotion (and the decision may get override by Garn/Abo with a valid reason).


I would like for Plahunter to understand this, you have only recently just got unbanned and I agree with the headmins that a lot of things have changed since his last permanent ban. Before you were permanently banned, you were racking up bad notes and history; you verbally attacked players, you harassed one of the staff, and stalked HunterRS in-game. I'm sorry to say this but I hope you understand the fact that you aren't a fitting person in our bureaucracy. It's almost impossible to be able to change our minds with your history as it is and with the evidences provided, I guarantee you that it is a lot more harder to change my mind. You indeed have a choice whether to provide a defense, it's going to take more than just guts or you may just plea the fifth.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally wasn't around back before Soviet was banned so I haven't had much interaction with him both IC or OOC. In my own opinion I'd give it some time before any applications to settle back in to the community. As for the ban itself, toxicity is a bad attribute for any staff / community member to have. That said, people can change, but I haven't seen him around enough yet to get to know him.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't say I know much about you. You're not as much of a meme as me on discord, so I wouldn't say your behavior is bad. Then again, with all that's said here, I'm not sure I could support you being CCIA.

Share this post


Link to post

After deliberating, we're going to deny this application.



FT and Skull both touched on the reality of what we do being a little different from your expectations, and that shouldn't be ignored. You appear to want to contribute to the atmosphere of the corporate bureaucracy, rather than to the staff team itself. This is more easily accomplished with a command whitelist and station IAA character. You can characterize them, and by extension the company, much more than we typically do with our CCIA agents. Most of our 'work' is in the background and not even connected to the progress or story of a given round, while players are actively participant in it.


Being on the station like this would also give you time to do a couple of other important things. Firstly, you should make sure that you enjoy your time here and that you plan on staying around. Having some more time to consistently play and learn how things work after so much has changed will help people trust you with the decisions you'd be helping make on the team. To successfully apply, I think you will also need to address the concerns of the people who have criticized you, which is only going to happen with some time and an effort made to engage them.


While I believe that something a person did two years ago shouldn't condemn them indefinitely in a roleplaying community, both players and staff need the opportunity to evaluate how you've changed. Jackboot calls out your eagerness and apparent good intentions as a positive, and I agree, but good intentions are ultimately just that. With the history, it would be irresponsible of us to accept this application on only good faith, and it's telling that no-one in this thread could definitively point to something as an indicator that you've changed for the better. They just haven't had the time.


So, give it the time and work with the game, the players and staff. When you know what you want, and believe you can overturn some of the negative criticism here, I encourage you to apply again.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×