MO_oNyMan Posted March 4, 2018 Posted March 4, 2018 Here's how the description of Neglect of Duty amber infractions looks right now i206 - Neglect of Duty - To fail to perform a job to a satisfactory standard. This can be due to honest or dishonest mistakes that the Head of the Department feels hampers Department productivity. Examples include scientists/engineers releasing phoron or causing a breach, doctors mixing up medicines that cause injury to patients, or the Warden not doing his job. Additionally, a member of Command may only be charged with Neglect of Duty with the agreement of the Captain, or through a Captain level decision passed by the Command Staff. The wording makes it seem that the charge may only be applied with the permission of the corresponding head of staff and in turn anything can be neglect of duty if a head of staff says so. Quite some people interpret this regulation in this way. However the charge also fits the failure to abide by station regulations well which are clearly written and do not require any particular expertise to recognise their breach. Furthermore you don't have to be a professional in some particular field to recognise neglect of duty of employees. A warden drinking coffee in his office while a prisoner is dying in his cell is a clear case of neglect of duty, A paramedic pulling an injured crewmember causing his wounds to worsen is a clear case of neglect of duty (and assault). And the list of examples goes on. To clarify the situation the notes of NoD charge are suggested to look as follows: The regulation covers crewmembers refusing to carry out their direct duties without a valid reason, misusing workplace tools and resources, making honest and dishonest mistakes that hamper the productivity of the department as well as failure to abide by station directives. Examples include scientists/engineers releasing phoron or causing a breach, doctors mixing up medicines that cause injury to patients, or the Warden not doing his job. If unsure whether a given action should be treated as neglect of duty consult the employee's direct superior. Additionally, a member of Command may only be charged with Neglect of Duty with the agreement of the Captain, or through a Captain level decision passed by the Command Staff.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 I don't understand what this clarification changes? It is intentionally vague enough to allow Heads to have that leeway to determine what is neglect of duty. It is a catch-all term for if someone is doing poo's worth at their job but there is no specific regulation being directly breached, as the examples listed. Your edit, when lawyered, is actually throwing out a bigger net since 'hampering productivity of a department' is something you can do really easily. The charge as it is now requires some meaty impact to have harmed someone or somethings on the station. The 'need captain buddy' clause is for charging a Head of Staff. Security Officers just going "HoP you are under arrest for neglect of duty" are breaking regs.
MO_oNyMan Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 I don't understand what this clarification changes? It is intentionally vague enough to allow Heads to have that leeway to determine what is neglect of duty. It is a catch-all term for if someone is doing poo's worth at their job but there is no specific regulation being directly breached, as the examples listed. Your edit, when lawyered, is actually throwing out a bigger net since 'hampering productivity of a department' is something you can do really easily. The charge as it is now requires some meaty impact to have harmed someone or somethings on the station. The 'need captain buddy' clause is for charging a Head of Staff. Security Officers just going "HoP you are under arrest for neglect of duty" are breaking regs. the application of a charge to heads of staff addition was unchanged as can be seen in the edited version of the regulation. The corrected version changes the regulation from the beating hammer in the hands of heads of staff to an actual applicable charge that can be stuck to crewmembers doing poor job at following workplace standards. As of now the charge doesn't require some meaty impact to have harmed something or someone on the station. All it needs is a head of staff saying "this is neglect of duty arrest this man" (or at least is interpreted as such by a considerable amount of people due to questionable wording). Newer version corrects this flaw (as inability to carry out one's duties is not something only a head of staff can determine) while simultaneously freeing security from the need to get approval of ones superior to apply the charge.
Synnono Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 From what I can gather above, you want to give Security the ability to apply the charge to the crew autonomously. Do security team members universally have the ability to determine a department's productivity, and what is hampering it? Individual crew members' duties? Do they need this to apply a charge when someone is misusing their equipment, if that is often covered by some other charge (hooliganism/trespassing/suspicious conduct)? Is there a good reason that crew should have their boss/command in general cut out of making these determinations? I see that you include a provision to have someone go to the supervisor in ambiguous cases, but I think that in practice, run-of-the-mill officers will be quicker to just stick the charge.
AmoryBlaine Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Neglect of duty is usually determined by supervisors. On some occasions, the charge is applied without supervisors when it's very obvious that the individual has failed to carry out their duties- IE: Doctor has spent entire shift in bar drunk. We don't need anything different than the current system.
Scheveningen Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Almost any head of staff can determine what is neglect of duty, as they have the occasionally relevant expertise and more importantly, the authority to denominate such. A HOS can arrest a medical doctor getting extremely drunk in the bar without their own head of staff's permission, and does not necessarily need to defer to the CMO on what constitutes "getting extremely drunk" as it is a particular case where the fault is so obvious that excuses from another head of staff won't cut it. What a HOS cannot do is arrest someone for neglect of duty if a particular individual was determined to have made mistakes by their own head of staff. I.E., engineering apprentice accidentally causes multiple APC stations to explode because they tried to upgrade the SMES and cut the wrong wire, and the chief engineer states that they've handled it internally already. That's not a situation where another member of the command team can double down punishment. We've already had a period in time where security officers loitered about waiting for an excuse to arrest someone for NoD. The wording was changed to disallow them from doing this. We don't need those times back.
MO_oNyMan Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 From what I can gather above, you want to give Security the ability to apply the charge to the crew autonomously. Do security team members universally have the ability to determine a department's productivity, and what is hampering it? Individual crew members' duties? Do they need this to apply a charge when someone is misusing their equipment, if that is often covered by some other charge (hooliganism/trespassing/suspicious conduct)? Is there a good reason that crew should have their boss/command in general cut out of making these determinations? I see that you include a provision to have someone go to the supervisor in ambiguous cases, but I think that in practice, run-of-the-mill officers will be quicker to just stick the charge. The corrected version not only allows for security to determine what is neglect of duty but also takes away the power from heads of staff to call anything they want a neglect of duty as well as making NoD the go to charge in case of the crew breaking station directives (as of now noone really knows what's supposed to be done in case someone breached station directives as there are no set punishment for such occasion and sentences vary from officer to officer). 1) As noted in the suggestion post in a lot of circumstances the fact of someone neglecting their duties is pretty obvious and the permission of a field expert to apply the charge is not required. If you're not sure about what exactly is going on you should consult the head of staff to clarify the situation. Otherwise why are ou even applying a charge you're not adamant about? Officers applying charges with little to none reasoning and evidence are subject to another existing regulation (Illegal detention, arrest or holding). 2) Misusing equipment like IV drips or flashbangs to play pranks is not really covered by regulations. Hooliganism is too mild for such waste of resources and sabotage is too harsh. Having a charge somewhere in the middle would be ideal to adapt specifically to the situation at hand. 3) Command still have some say in these matters (as they have authority over all of the staff and can provide information about the case at hand as evidence of the employee's innocence). However they can't excuse a blatant case of neglect just by saying it wasn't anymore. Furthermore bad officer are applying the charge without head's permission regardless of wording. It's decent officers that take time to read the regulation that are hampered by the need to present the entire case to a corresponding department's head. Neglect of duty is usually determined by supervisors. On some occasions, the charge is applied without supervisors when it's very obvious that the individual has failed to carry out their duties- IE: Doctor has spent entire shift in bar drunk. We don't need anything different than the current system. That's exactly what the corrected wording suggests: to account to the situation you presented. Because right now brigging the medic who is drunk at the bar the whole shift is advocated as impossible without the specific permission from the CMO due to the questionable wording of the regulation. Almost any head of staff can determine what is neglect of duty, as they have the occasionally relevant expertise and more importantly, the authority to denominate such. A HOS can arrest a medical doctor getting extremely drunk in the bar without their own head of staff's permission, and does not necessarily need to defer to the CMO on what constitutes "getting extremely drunk" as it is a particular case where the fault is so obvious that excuses from another head of staff won't cut it. What a HOS cannot do is arrest someone for neglect of duty if a particular individual was determined to have made mistakes by their own head of staff. I.E., engineering apprentice accidentally causes multiple APC stations to explode because they tried to upgrade the SMES and cut the wrong wire, and the chief engineer states that they've handled it internally already. That's not a situation where another member of the command team can double down punishment. We've already had a period in time where security officers loitered about waiting for an excuse to arrest someone for NoD. The wording was changed to disallow them from doing this. We don't need those times back. Clarifying that any head of staff can determine neglect of duty is definitely a step in the right direction. However what exactly the HoS has that makes him suitable to determine if an extremely drunk medic is neglecting his duty that an officer doesn't have? How exactly did CE handle the situation internally to compensate for the blown station equipment while not having the ability to fine and modify crewmembers' security records? Command staff is not above the regulations they can't pardon someone. What exactly is the meaning of "loitered about waiting for an excuse to arrest someone for NoD"? Illegal arrest, detention or holding is still a regulation that can be applied to an officer who arrested someone without a valid reason. Doing a poor job as an officer is a universal thing that you can't seriously expect to be corrected by forbidding them to make and arrest unless they have a specific permission from a head of staff (that is not HoS). Bad officers are still arresting people and ignoring the regulations while decent officers are struggling to get authorisation to arrest drunken medics. Saying that the regulation shouldn't be allowed to get enforced by officers because "they're for sure too bad to handle the responsibility" is a pretty shaky and condescending reasoning
Butterrobber202 Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 Honestly this would do a lot more harm than good. So chucklefuck McOfficier sees McDoctor getting a drink in the bar, then suddenly he hears about a virus. ReeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEE, arrested. Honestly the current system is fine.
Synnono Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 The corrected version not only allows for security to determine what is neglect of duty but also takes away the power from heads of staff to call anything they want a neglect of duty as well as making NoD the go to charge in case of the crew breaking station directives (as of now noone really knows what's supposed to be done in case someone breached station directives as there are no set punishment for such occasion and sentences vary from officer to officer). In this case, I'd like to vote for dismissal. I don't really think people without departmental expertise should be making the calls for less-obvious cases, and I particularly don't like that you're calling out "taking away the power" from a department head to determine it in the first place. As mentioned by Jackboot, giving Heads the ability to cover these cases is partially why the regulation exists, and it is commonly the solution for the Directive breaches you mention. Others are covered by other regulations, and officer interpretation is an expected component of that. If security witnesses an obvious case of NoD, they can report it so that Command can then sort it out - whether that's by determining NoD, or ordering the crew in question to stop, which sets them up for Failing to Execute an Order if they do not. In the event of a severe accident or other extreme, reckless behavior, it's the Head that would be remediating the crew member in question via a suspension or demotion anyway. Edit: While I don't think this suggestion should be implemented as proposed, we are going to take a look at ways to cover certain cases of severe recklessness without a Head present. If it's decided that it is necessary and helpful to the gameplay of a round, there might be an update somewhere.
MO_oNyMan Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 Honestly this would do a lot more harm than good. So chucklefuck McOfficier sees McDoctor getting a drink in the bar, then suddenly he hears about a virus. ReeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEE, arrested. Honestly the current system is fine. chucklefuck McOfficer will do that regardless of whether a regulation says he can In this case, I'd like to vote for dismissal. I don't really think people without departmental expertise should be making the calls for less-obvious cases, and I particularly don't like that you're calling out "taking away the power" from a department head to determine it in the first place. As mentioned by Jackboot, giving Heads the ability to cover these cases is partially why the regulation exists, and it is commonly the solution for the Directive breaches you mention. Others are covered by other regulations, and officer interpretation is an expected component of that. If security witnesses an obvious case of NoD, they can report it so that Command can then sort it out - whether that's by determining NoD, or ordering the crew in question to stop, which sets them up for Failing to Execute an Order if they do not. In the event of a severe accident or other extreme, reckless behavior, it's the Head that would be remediating the crew member in question via a suspension or demotion anyway. Here's the problem: "mistakes that the Head of the Department feels hampers Department productivity." Even putting aside the inability of security to act on obvious infraction without an additional authorisation, the complete impossibility of applying the charge in the absense of command staff and the fact that some infractions that are covered by NoD but have no specific head of staff in charge of determining whether that particular case was an infraction (station directives, failure to cooperate with iaa investigation), the "feels" part makes the charge too subjective to be a regulation and regulations should be objective (as opposed to based on feelings). Currently a head of staff can tell security to arrest anyone in his department for anything he can think of because he "feels" like it, which in my opinion should be corrected. On top of that there's a confusion about station directives being written and set solid and the infraction the breach is punished with very vague. So you can breach station directives (which are pretty clear) yet you won't be arrested for that unless the head of staff "feels" like it's a breach of station directives
Azande Posted March 5, 2018 Posted March 5, 2018 This is a corporation. If a manager thinks you're doing something wrong, they can punish you for it -kinda how the corporate world works. Dismiss this plz.
MO_oNyMan Posted March 5, 2018 Author Posted March 5, 2018 This is a corporation. If a manager thinks you're doing something wrong, they can punish you for it -kinda how the corporate world works. Dismiss this plz. You can implement dictatorship in your own department all you want but don't involve security into this and don't try to get regulations to play along with you. Regulationswere implemented to protect and support all employees for the profit of corporation not just heads of staff.
Scheveningen Posted March 6, 2018 Posted March 6, 2018 This is a corporation. If a manager thinks you're doing something wrong, they can punish you for it -kinda how the corporate world works. Dismiss this plz. You can implement dictatorship in your own department all you want but don't involve security into this and don't try to get regulations to play along with you. Regulationswere implemented to protect and support all employees for the profit of corporation not just heads of staff. I had to laugh at this because, while you're absolutely correct and I totally agree, it's wasted breath when you're trying to tell Xander that even the heads of staff need to work to a greater purpose than just themselves. You're not gonna be able to convince him off of abusing his official powers over petty crap in a round.
Faris Posted March 8, 2018 Posted March 8, 2018 The corrected version not only allows for security to determine what is neglect of duty but also takes away the power from heads of staff to call anything they want a neglect of duty as well as making NoD the go to charge in case of the crew breaking station directives (as of now noone really knows what's supposed to be done in case someone breached station directives as there are no set punishment for such occasion and sentences vary from officer to officer). In this case, I'd like to vote for dismissal. I don't really think people without departmental expertise should be making the calls for less-obvious cases, and I particularly don't like that you're calling out "taking away the power" from a department head to determine it in the first place. As mentioned by Jackboot, giving Heads the ability to cover these cases is partially why the regulation exists, and it is commonly the solution for the Directive breaches you mention. Others are covered by other regulations, and officer interpretation is an expected component of that. If security witnesses an obvious case of NoD, they can report it so that Command can then sort it out - whether that's by determining NoD, or ordering the crew in question to stop, which sets them up for Failing to Execute an Order if they do not. In the event of a severe accident or other extreme, reckless behavior, it's the Head that would be remediating the crew member in question via a suspension or demotion anyway. Edit: While I don't think this suggestion should be implemented as proposed, we are going to take a look at ways to cover certain cases of severe recklessness without a Head present. If it's decided that it is necessary and helpful to the gameplay of a round, there might be an update somewhere. Essentially this. Something else is in the works. Current suggestion is not going to be implemented. Voting for dismissal, won't lock and archive yet due to 1 week safety period..
Recommended Posts