Loorey CCIA Interview

CatsinHD
 — 16:14
Alright. Beginning now then
What IC and OOC aspects do you believe should be considered when deciding on the resolution of an incident report?

loorey — 16:18
Let's start with the "easier" part which is going to be the IC part. I'd say that the biggest part would be giving a check over both the reporter's but especially offender's character records, seeing what previous security or even CCIA incidents there have been if there have been any and seeing how those are related to the incident report in question. Generally giving a sweep over the character's own inserted records, especially the security part, is also a plus - to see what kind of fluff they added about their character and how it could relate to the incident.

The OOC part is a bit tougher, the work should imo always fully be acted upon with IC information only as far as that gets you, but taking into consideration the player's general attitude, behavior and history might be an icebreaker sometimes. Most importantly also seeing if they respond to you in a timely manner (when you send the notice about the IR) or if they (the offender) respond to you at all (which would also dictate heavily how the IR can end).

CatsinHD
 — 16:20
Alright.
Moving on to the next question.
How do you feel about the current iteration of Corporate Regulations and Standard Operating Procedures? Do you feel like it is in a good spot, or could some improvements be made?

loorey — 16:23
As for the corporate regulations, which do not get touched all too much; I'd say they are in a pretty okay state for what Aurora is. You can always get super fine grained with adding more regulations for very specific edge cases and all of that but that would make it more of a pain that be of help I feel like. I don't think I've ever had a round playing Security where I couldn't link a charge to something someone did. Sometimes you might have to bend definitions just a little bit, but overall they're pretty solid.

As for the Standard Operating Procedures; I feel like they get polished a lot more especially when mechanics (code-wise) change or there's changes to lore that would be connected. From all of the things I know out of the SOP (and I certainly don't know them all by heart, just a lot of important things in regards to command, medical and security) they're also pretty polished. I'd say both CorpRegs and the SOP are in a solid state imo.

CatsinHD
 — 16:25
Excellent. Last 'theoretical' question
CCIA, through faxes and announcements, can sway the round heavily in response to faxes or antagonistic actions. Could you provide an example, either from your own personal experiences in a round or a hypothetical scenario, on when CCIA/Central Command should intervene with a heavier hand?

loorey — 16:30
There's two cases I can think of here really. The first one being a bit of a helping element to the gimmick of antagonists, announcements and forged paperwork are solid and from the moderation perspective also ultimate to command (if it's not too hilarious) as far as I remember, but sometimes a fax sent to command or specific command members, consulars or reps by CCIA just gives more of a nudge and can round up a gimmick. Asking in AOOC whether or not antagonists might need a little help with that or engaging with them if they're asking in AOOC, it's also one of the few reasons CCIA has AOOC access I assume.

Secondly, if there's some fluff roleplay going on between a character and consular/corporate rep, depending on what it is giving proper responses that canonically make sense for a character's own arc. I guess that's less of intervening with a round though lol.

Lastly something I wanted to mention and ask about, "confirmation faxes" trying to confirm antags were very strictly discouraged and punished on the modmin side of things, that's still the case and the attitude you guys have too yeah? Ignore those and nudge admins about it?
Because confirmation faxes are usually just command trying to completely derail and destroy gimmicks, from the experience I have with it. Maybe if the antags agree with it or want it, it's alright, but just unwarranted for command it's super iffy and frustrating.

CatsinHD
 — 16:33
They are not allowed early in an antag's gimmick. I.E. asking if the merc acting like HAPT at 1:00 are real, which would derail the gimmick outright as CCIA, without admin approval, cannot confirm it and denial would reveal the antags too early. However, later in the round, such as 1:45 or 1:50 where there is little time left in a gimmick, it may be acceptable. We'd rather not in that latter case, but can do so to move the round along.
Usually we pass it on to modmins and act on it if modmins kick it back.

loorey — 16:34
Alright, figured as much 👍

CatsinHD
 — 16:35
Yep! Alright, moving on to situational questions. Remember, no wrong answers.

During one of your incident report investigations, you learn that the incident that occurred was the fault of both parties, one instigating another, and the other responding with escalation (i.e. bar fight). While both conflicting parties have managed to resolve this amongst themselves, the reporter still believes they should be punished for causing the incident in the first place as it has distracted multiple departments from their work. What would you look into before handing down the resolution, and would you punish the parties involved?

loorey — 16:39
This entirely depends on the severity of what happened resulting from the mutual escalation. If it's a pretty petty thing and the involved parties hashed it out between each other beyond the IR, I'd say that book is ready to be closed, maybe they should be given a verbal reminder about what they did not being okay but if it's resolved I'd say it can be resolved without all too much work from CCIA side too. If it's something more major, lets say really hard cases of assault or red level infractions that resulted in the mutual stirrup, I'd still say an investigation and proper punishment of the parties. If both escalated to such a level, both parties being punished. It really depends on the severity of what happened in my eyes and the general attitude of the two parties directly involved.

CatsinHD
 — 16:41
Relating to this situation question, what additional considerations would you take into an investigation when the report was submitted by a third-party (a witness, rather than offender or victim)?

loorey — 16:45
Considering it's just a witness firstly the relation of the witness to the two and the situation overall, I'll assume they've just seen it and weren't really involved whatsoever and I'll also assume they too want to be interviewed about that. Not much changes from what I initially said tbh, just the fact that I have another more unbiased perspective to take into consideration when making a decision. But considering they weren't involved in the whole hashing out part (the witness) and wanted it investigated, I'd still pursue an investigation over it.

CatsinHD
 — 16:46
Fair enough.

During one round, the antagonists decided to play a fake Hephaestus representative gimmick. They have taken things a bit too far, and Command has decided to send a fax to confirm their identity and authorisation as a result. The round time is now 01:45, and you warn the antagonists via AOOC that you will now reply. The antagonists ask you not to blow their gimmick. What do you do?

loorey — 16:51
I'll direct once again to what I previously said about confirmation faxes -usually- being a modmin problem, so it heavily depends on what really happened the round but seeing as you said they took things a bit too far. I'd talk a little to the antagonists in question over AOOC and see what they think and how we can make it out, but I'd definitely give command a proper response one way or another. It's very thin ice imo and very situational. Though if antagonists take things way too far into a direction where it just gets hilarious, there's a point you reach where you just cannot not blow their gimmick anymore. But I would never ever just send out something that would instantly uncover the antagonist and destroy their gimmick. I'd try my best to coordinate with them and push it in a direction everyone can agree on instead.
Like if antagonists introduce themselves as a faction friendly to the SCC intially, roll with it, but go super gung-ho (assuming they are still alive after lol) there's a point you reach where you just cannot in good faith anymore say "Yup they are one of ours and totally legit" - depends as I said

CatsinHD
 — 16:54
Fair enough. In this case, they are remaining peaceful but are acting in a way that makes little sense for a corporate representative of Hephaestus or an SCC corporation. Command is suspicious because the statements are out of pocket, and might suggest an imposter. The time, as mentioned, is 1:45 and the ship is on green.

loorey — 16:56
I'd try my best to make my mind up together with the antagonists, personally from my antagonist experiences.. a situation like this rarely ever comes up directly or at least I haven't seen it before. But in the rare case it does happen, there's always a way to push it into a direction that everyone can happily agree on. Talking helps I say. But at some point command can also just ICly make the decision that enough is enough by themselves (i.e the getting too hilarious part)

CatsinHD
 — 16:58
Fair enough! Next question.

Command has sent you a fax informing you that the Dominian consular has been arrested for instigating a duel on the holodeck and causing an injury, and are now requesting that you revoke their representative privileges as a result. The consular has actually done quite a lot more as an antagonist, including killing someone, but this was just before the fax was sent and left out of the paper. What do you reply with?

loorey — 17:00
To clarify, this fax is for actually stripping any and all privileges from them during a round yes? Because going after the SOP on a case-by-case the captain or a captain level decision by command can revoke their immunity and lead to an arrest. This is for completely relieving them out of the position in the confines of the round yeah?

CatsinHD
 — 17:02
Yes. This would be primarily in reference to:
The representative can serve brig time for medium and high-level infractions, with command staff being able to contact Central Command requesting the revocation of the representative's privileges.

Which covers all matters of representative privileges including officer immunity.

loorey — 17:03
Ah that's what you mean, gotcha
Going back to the situation, I can of course only go after what the fax actually said. That would be focused on the injury then, everything else I cannot take into account as it was not mentioned. Given the charge Assault specifically mentions severe injury, I'd take into account who they attacked in that duel. It's a really strong case-by-case basis here to be honest, I'd also take into account the round time and see how everything could come together in one piece. Stripping all privileges from a consular during a round is a pretty big thing and practically makes them just an assistant, and "ends" their round.
But either way, it can definitely lead to a strip of their privileges, I would evaluate the situation more thoroughly though.

CatsinHD
 — 17:08
The round time is 1:32, however there is no additional information on who was hit or the extent of their injuries.

loorey — 17:12
I'd consider the type of injury and the records/history of the consular in that case. Though all-in-all speaking, I think a holodeck duel in the case of a dominian consular can be stamped off as a "well, it really sucks" but I wouldn't think stripping them of all their privileges for that really is in order not taking into context everything else that happened.

CatsinHD
 — 17:13
Alright. That's all of my questions. Anything you'd like to ask before we finish up?

loorey — 17:14
Nooope nothing that comes to mind right now

CatsinHD
 — 17:14
Epic. That's all then