Jump to content

New Station Directive: 'Regarding Freedom of the Press '


Recommended Posts

I do not see a reason to deem their misconduct an OOC issue, when you consider that we have the CCIA for exactly cases like this.

 

Journalists cannot contact CCIA. Journalists cannot file IRs about command abuse of D-Notice powers if the news being reported was related to antags, which is 90% of D-Noticed content.

Link to comment

I do not see a reason to deem their misconduct an OOC issue, when you consider that we have the CCIA for exactly cases like this.

 

Journalists cannot contact CCIA. Journalists cannot file IRs about command abuse of D-Notice powers if the news being reported was related to antags, which is 90% of D-Noticed content.

 

That's nice. Though considering the recent addition of the journalists as a role, that assertion is not something which has to hold.


Considering they have a press pass, meaning they needed to get through PR, and also need to deal with internal security to get their clearance, rules, etcetera. They might as well have access to CCIA. Even if via some proxy which we can politely set up for "lore" purposes.

Link to comment

Is there any reason to not say "you cannot ever d-notice a freelancer" even on red alert? I cannot really think of any.

 

One example I immediately thought of is a journalist helping hostile forces by leaking security information out into the public, for example.

Corporate secrets is another.

Link to comment

Is there any reason to not say "you cannot ever d-notice a freelancer" even on red alert? I cannot really think of any.

 

One example I immediately thought of is a journalist helping hostile forces by leaking security information out into the public, for example.

Corporate secrets is another.

 

Exactly, so make it a mechanical block on any alert pre-red. Command has no reason to D-Notice a freelancer before code red unless they're chucklefucking, in which case A-Help.

Link to comment

One example I immediately thought of is a journalist helping hostile forces by leaking security information out into the public, for example.

Corporate secrets is another.

 

hrmm


We might be able to discourage it for normal day to day operations but allow the authority in special cases. Like if the station isn't ACTUALLY at red alert because the mercs killed 2 out of 3 command.

Link to comment

Okay so here's a bit of a long winded deal about what I'm looking for and why.


First, let's establish this: both sides can abuse these mechanics without any enforcement or policy. Captains can D-notice stuff until the cows come running home, and journalists can do things like leak security information to antags and so on. We have people who've abused both positions and have been warned, banned, etcetera for it. So whatever methods of handling are chosen, the must address both sides.


Second, let us concede the fact that there has, thus far, been minimal or no policy surrounding D-notices. This means that any example of, "Look at how often this happens!" must be taken with the grain of salt that no one has had a major reason to consider acting a certain way about the issue. Nor have they had official guidance, meaning they have applied their own sensibilities to the matter in an unabated fashion. As such, the status quo is not a valid enough reason to request mechanical enforcement until the policy based solution proves ineffectual.


Third, as we have established, there are valid circumstances where the Captain and command staff in general need to immediately D-notice a journalist's entry. Specifically in cases where the information contained in them poses a credible threat to personnel safety. Obviously the journalists have a responsibility to not commit actions like this, but it is probably saner for everyone involved if the Captain can D-notice and cut out critical mistakes.


Now, minor violations of this are not a large enough concern to merit OOC intervention. This is my opinion. There are much harsher crimes which are punished ICly, not OOCly. A singular violation, with policy in place, would generally indicate a mistake. A mistake which can be rectified with IC guidance from the CCIA. In fact, it is my belief that this is exactly something the CCIA should be doing: establishing IC policy and making sure that it's adhered to. Resolving minor IC conflict is something the CCIA should be capable of, and their literal job. Of further note is the fact that this policy can easily be violated by either side in a fashion which does not conflict with the current rules. So again, CCIA realm vs Moderators.


While discussing this in Discord, there were concerns about the capacity of the CCIA to enforce something so "important". At which point, I suggested that if CCIA are unable to do their job to the degree which is required, then that should be improved. This is not some magical unicorn. This is another piece of IC policy which is established to support new mechanics. Another day at the office. Or at least it should be.


TL;DR: keep it IC. Seriously.

Link to comment

After discussing this with CCIA internally they have created a draft of the new station directive.

 

Regarding Freedom of The Press - Station Directive 10


To clarify company policy supporting protections granted by federal law to freelance journalists.


Visiting and subcontracting ("freelance") journalists are not to be censored via a newschannel D-Notice, unless the facility's Captain (or Heads of Staff in an unanimous decision) determine that the content they publish directly endangers the safety of NanoTrasen employees. Command Staff choosing to apply a D-Notice in this manner are expected to immediately contact Central Command to report that it has been applied, and to await confirmation by Central Command that the application of such a notice is deemed valid.


Journalists employed via direct contract with NanoTrasen have voluntarily waived these protections, as per the terms of their employee contract.

 


Please leave any feedback, questions, comments or any concerns at all you might have. The current plan is to make this an official IC station direction one week from the time of this post.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm down with that:

 

Regarding Freedom of The Press - Station Directive 10


To clarify company policy supporting protections granted by federal law to freelance journalists.


Visiting and subcontracting ("freelance") journalists are not to be censored via a newschannel D-Notice, unless the facility's Captain (or Heads of Staff in an unanimous decision) determine that the content they publish directly endangers the safety of NanoTrasen employees. Command Staff choosing to apply a D-Notice in this manner are expected to immediately contact Central Command to report that it has been applied, and to await confirmation by Central Command that the application of such a notice is valid. The creator of the channel is also to be made aware of both the notice and the reasoning for its implementation.


Journalists directly employed by NanoTrasen voluntarily waive these protections, as per the terms of their employment contract.

Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...
  • Gem locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...