[Resolved] Character Complaint - Luxo Khazarazir

This is going awfully down the rabbit hole here about warrants. Let me ask, is it often that Captains observe crimes occurring on green and direct an officer to make an arrest sans warrant? Is that really the warrantless arrest problem that Aurora is having and IA needs to respond to?

Sounds like an awfully special case to me. The Captain could author the warrant and the HoS works for him - don't forget that if the Captain were replaced by the HoS in this surgeon scenario, there would be no problem. Personally, I'm not convinced that there should be any difference between the loyalty-implanted HoS observing a crime and directing an officer, that works for him, to make an arrest, and the loyalty-implanted Captain observing a crime and directing an officer, who works for him, to make an arrest.

I think that saying an officer breached procedure is going too far. If anything, the Captain breached procedure, and then only by not signing his name to a piece of paper.

It is splitting hairs to say the officer was in the wrong. And no, IA's duty is not to split hairs.

The Captain is not above regulations, but you cannot refuse an order from the Captain. Captain's orders have to be carried out ASAP, even if you disagree with them or think they might be illegal.

Captain orders you to do something.

You do it.

After you execute the order, THEN you start looking into if it was problematic or not. Captain's have to answer for everything they do in these situations but it is retoactively.

Captains are not above regulations. They have to answer for whatever they ordered after it was done. AFTER it was done. Captain's are loyalty implanted and you have to assume they have a reason for what they are doing. You gotta do it or resign as in Failure to Execute an Order. Captains have to be retoactively spanked, which is really hard to swallow for people. Ordering an arrest on code green by the cap has to be followed and it will fall on the Cap to explain to IA or CCIA why they did it and why it deserved to not have a warrant.

If the Cap said "get a warrant" then the order was not executed properly and that's when the blame falls from the cap to whoever did the arrest.

idk about the rest of the stuff but that's been the precedent and reg procedures for this sort of thing for awhile now. There are specific clauses for skipping warrants on code green but they just cover search warrants for departments and employees. This will probably be a lot easier to handle if we have it encompass arrest warrants too.

IAA telling command how to dress is crazy but I'm biased because my HoP wears blue jeans and a tank top to show his solidarity with the working class.

As far as I was able to gather, the Captain called out illegal activity, and ISD responded. It would have absolutely been a special case if he specifically ordered the arrest, but thats a special case that I can't gather considering I myself don't have log access, and in character even more limited a viewpoint. The Officer when questioned stated simply defended it saying "the captain witnessed it". It would have changed everything if he said "the captain straight up ordered the arrest" but he only defended his actions saying it was witnessed, so he was under no pressure to arrest immediately and break regulations.

IAA telling command how to dress is crazy but I'm biased because my HoP wears blue jeans and a tank top to show his solidarity with the working class.

I don't just tell command what to wear, I notify them that, and if, what they are wearing is breaking RN #580319.002. My logic for pushing this, even towards Heads of Staff if they are within the specified departments, is that it's not just a matter of "wear this because its issued to you". It's because all those specified fall under personal protective equipment, health and safety, or in ISD's case the need to be properly identifiable as Security. Whenever this comes up, I send a couple of PDA messages poking them about "hey, your uniform is a safety violation, please wear your safety gear" as was recommended in a post by ForgottenTraveller. I poke them, and if they continue to make an issue of it (no one ever has) I would possibly poke their head of staff. Wearing PPE is a legitimate safety concern and this is a high roleplay server. Pushing regulation like this is the entire point of the IA role.

And for the record, you have no need to be concerned personally because Heads of Personnel (and Captains, and CMO/RD if they're just sitting around) are not covered. Yes, Captains. I have never told a captain what to wear. I have asked one captain, in conjunction with a head of security, to safely store their items in their locker versus dumping them in the hallway under the same logic that it'd be asked of ISD personnel to safely store their uniforms, which is because of the authority commanded by these uniforms, and they faxed CCIA over it, which is fucking insane.

This is going awfully down the rabbit hole here about warrants. Let me ask, is it often that Captains observe crimes occurring on green and direct an officer to make an arrest sans warrant? Is that really the warrantless arrest problem that Aurora is having and IA needs to respond to?

It is splitting hairs to say the officer was in the wrong. And no, IA's duty is not to split hairs.

Do you want IAs to just... sit around and do nothing? It doesn't matter if it doesn't happen often, good, lets keep it from happening often. Literally all that took place here was a quick investigation of the incident, which found that someone went into a department on code green and arrested someone without warrant. It was found to be unlawful and illegal arrest was recommended and it was forwarded to the Head of Security (who didn't read it). This occurred on code green, where regulations should be upheld strictly, especially when it comes to arrests. I'm not the one that made a complaint about it. I didn't follow him around all round yelling at him over it. I wrote a short complaint which found that a single medium-level infraction occurred, and my report got ignored. That's it. If you want to take the "is this really worth all the trouble???" stance then you should direct it towards those who made trouble about it. And yes reminding people of regulations and identifying infractions on those regulations to forward to security definitely is IA's duty.

As far as I was able to gather, the Captain called out illegal activity, and ISD responded. It would have absolutely been a special case if he specifically ordered the arrest, but thats a special case that I can't gather considering I myself don't have log access, and in character even more limited a viewpoint.

As far as you took action to gather. The captain did order the arrest, and taking the time to actually interview either the captain or the officer would have revealed that very quickly.

The fact that the Head of Security didn't see it is irrelevant, the issue is that you did not properly investigate - due to bias or just not being good at the job - and your report incriminated someone who had followed the captains orders. From my understanding, your public statements also indicated that he was incompetent, which would have given reason for the HoS wanting to demote the officer.

I'm not complaining because you came to the wrong conclusion. I'm complaining because both ICly and OOCly you seem to be playing to win and you refuse to consider your actions or think about how they were wrong.

Few things to clear up:

I blocked the byond conversation because it went in circles just about as much as this very thread is going, if you don't know what you're talking about and have no context for any of this I don't know why you're involved.

This is false. I don't have access to the conversation because I closed it after you blocked me, but if you'd like to post it then it will show that nothing of the sort happened, and that you blocked me after I sent two 'groups' of messages. Otherwise, please stop saying that you blocked me because I was being somehow unreasonable or cyclical in my criticism.

Also,

If you want to take the "is this really worth all the trouble???" stance then you should direct it towards those who made trouble about it.

I didn't want to make trouble about it. I wanted to talk to you about how to improve your mindset during play so you don't end up repeating these kind of mistakes. You forced me to make it public when you blocked me instead of listening to my criticism.

EDIT: Nevermind, I was able to get the logs.

I did jump the gun and was much too quick to block you, regardless of whether or not I stand by what I did. I was already worse enough off from our IC interaction, and I let it impact our OOC conversation for which I apologize. However, as for the subject of the conversation itself, it was inevitably going to take the same exact route this thread is taking. You take issue with actions that I stand by, both in my response to your antag, as well as me writing a report on someone for arresting without warrant. What I see as a mistake was my breach of impartiality while talking to the Head of Security, but that isn't something that was brought up. I don't "refuse to consider my actions or think about how they were wrong". I've explained them repeatedly here and to you privately, and I explained them when I was ahelped at the time. Do you think this would have gone any differently if it was kept private?

On the topic of one of these incidents brought up. If an incident has been dealt with by staff, then it won't be investigated here as it's already been covered by a member of staff. If you disagree with the end result, you should file a staff complaint.

Only negative experience I had icly with him is that when the Captain's quarters was being drained of air, and his first instinct was to get in a soft suit and destroy all the cameras with a fire axe. Like there were no mentions of a rampant AI or anyone exploiting the Cameras, he just decided to destroy the cameras. It might've been dealt with because he gave up on that endeavor 2 or 3 cameras in.

Only negative experience I had icly with him is that when the Captain's quarters was being drained of air, and his first instinct was to get in a soft suit and destroy all the cameras with a fire axe. Like there were no mentions of a rampant AI or anyone exploiting the Cameras, he just decided to destroy the cameras. It might've been dealt with because he gave up on that endeavor 2 or 3 cameras in.

and his first instinct was to get in a soft suit and destroy all the cameras with a fire axe.

If I'm being vented (entire bridge set to panic siphon), and the only way for me to escape is to use a nearby fire axe for its intended purpose (getting through the shutters)... then it stands to reason I'd use them

Like there were no mentions of a rampant AI or anyone exploiting the Cameras,

It was announced over comms. Like, by both the malf AI (as part of its gimmick) and the crew.

he just decided to destroy the cameras.

Literally got told to do something about cameras, and ISD was busy helping the Captain not die.

It might've been dealt with because he gave up on that endeavor 2 or 3 cameras in.

No I didn't.

Only negative experience I had icly with him is that when the Captain's quarters was being drained of air, and his first instinct was to get in a soft suit and destroy all the cameras with a fire axe. Like there were no mentions of a rampant AI or anyone exploiting the Cameras, he just decided to destroy the cameras. It might've been dealt with because he gave up on that endeavor 2 or 3 cameras in.

and his first instinct was to get in a soft suit and destroy all the cameras with a fire axe.

If I'm being vented (entire bridge set to panic siphon), and the only way for me to escape is to use a nearby fire axe for its intended purpose (getting through the shutters)... then it stands to reason I'd use them

Like there were no mentions of a rampant AI or anyone exploiting the Cameras,

It was announced over comms. Like, by both the malf AI (as part of its gimmick) and the crew.

he just decided to destroy the cameras.

Literally got told to do something about cameras, and ISD was busy helping the Captain not die.

It might've been dealt with because he gave up on that endeavor 2 or 3 cameras in.

No I didn't.

Are we sure we're talking about the same round? I specifically made a mental note in my head that an Internal Affairs agent was powergaming like crazy during that round.

I see a common theme in this thread. "ISD was busy/dead, so I did ISD stuff."

That is simply not appropriate for IA. It just isn't. IA is not ISD. That implant doesn't give you special authority. Your job is internal affairs, not antag hunting.

Yes, the common theme is "the station was in crisis mode and very important people were actively being murdered, or already were murdered". Unusual people tend to help out during crises, especially when its "Security is dead" or "the Captain is actively being murdered". I'd say the common theme in this thread is also "for some reason a loyalty implanted individual doing things is outrageous that wouldn't be if it was a random person of any other role". If all of ISD was murdered, and station defense devolved to a militia, a bartender shooting someone who was coming at him with a hand grenade would not catch a second glance, it would be considered standard self-defense during a time where there was literally no one around to save him and not doing so meant guaranteed death. If the Captain was in the process of being actively murdered, and a security officer told an assistant who was standing there watching to help disrupt camera coverage by means of a conveniently located blunt object, the assistant would be required to do so because he was given an order by ISD during a crisis situation and no one would give him doing so a second thought. But suddenly someone who otherwise is just an office worker and in that situation he's legally obligated to sit by while miners and gardeners do help out because it's just common sense, because he's an IA and IAs are not ISD and IAs are apparently supposed to distance themselves from any sort of involvement in the round whatsoever just to demonstrate how not Security they are.

I'm noticing a common theme of "we don't give a shit about high roleplay if it inconveniences our antag play" too, because you look like you expect someone to just stand there and die based on an OOC expectation of IA to do everything physically possible to distance themselves from antagonist involvement because antagonist involvement is a Security thing and IAAs just aren't security even when this involvement is basic instinctive response that any realistic person would take.

-snip-

Just because you have security comms doesn't mean you have a security mandate, regardless of the circumstances.

And I simply disagree with your portrayal of powergaming with a loyalty implant.

I am also highly concerned with the fact that you are replying with inflammatory walls of text whenever someone makes a point in this thread.

I really don't like the "he did it so I can" thing. An IAA is not supposed to be actively involved in security work. Just because an assistant did, doesn't mean you should get involved in it. You should run from conflict, not go punch the antag, you shouldn't try to make your character the hero. You're a desk jockey who faxes things to Central, not an action movie hero. Uphold the standards of RP that a whitelisted player is obligated to, don't justify actions with "he/she did this so it's okay!" y'know? And uh, can we keep this discussion civil? No need for this to get heated, we're all spessman buddies here.

After letting this complaint sit for a week or so, we have decided on a resolution to the complaint.

The first incident seems much like an IC issue. We do not think it warrants any OOC action, and should have been brought up in an IR instead.

The second incident was handled by staff, and is thus valid. If you wish to contest the actions, then you may post a staff complaint on the handling staff member.

We will, however, be speaking to Munks about the other OOC issues brought up in this complaint - primarily, their attitude. That should clear up every issue presented in the complaint. As such, this thread will now be locked and archived, deemed resolved.