What IC and OOC aspects do you believe should be considered when deciding on the resolution of an incident report?


:blank:
Like with any department tasked with internal investigation, an employee prioritizes the consistent variables that are most conducive to what – say a  judge – attempts to acquiesce during a trial: those that paint a clear, vivid image of the altercation to mete out the most fitting punishment in accordance to regulation and the individuals involved.
We must begin with a reliable, unwavering understanding of every aspect to the case to serve as the foundation. With as close an approximate grasp to the truth, a matter of assessing the variables to determine fault, a break in regulation, and the level of severity. Last, most vital, an appropriate judgment that – ideally – manages to satisfactorily (not in the opinion of the parties involved) uphold the company’s best interest, the victim’s adequate reparation, and corrective action to the offender that will prevent problematic behavior in the future.
:blank:
IC Aspects
▫️Prior History. Is there documentation, public knowledge, or inherent biases between the victim and the aggressor? The escalation that lead to the IR is a crucial lens to understand the dynamics that better empower the most sound decision to be made. Rarely is an encounter in a vacuum sufficient enough to reach an agent’s desk. These are often handled on shift, including even presiding Command member’s involvement. Does the victim have an agenda? Is there a bias against said victim where evidence can be seen under a different light? Depending on how rich they are with interactions can we determine assignable malice, ignorance, genuine mistakes, or simply consistency in behavior. This includes the history of the main parties involved. There are cases where a bad faith actor can very easily manipulate their victim then cry wolf to their superiors or send a report to appear as if it was the victim that was the aggressor instead.
:blank:
▫️Accurate account of the event. If the stories don’t align at a glance, as they rarely do,  it warrants further investigation to understand what actually occurred. There is the victim’s story, the culprit’s story, and somewhere betwixt the truth. Rare is either party truly faultless. Rarer are both justified, leading to the only outcome to unfold, as it did, that necessitated a report. A house without stable foundation collapses. Any observations, insights, or speculation we make similarly crumbles if the chronology, crime, and actions cannot be agreed upon.
:blank:
:blank:
▫️Individual History. Is it believable, in understanding who the parties involved are, that the incident itself took place? Can it be attributed to a clash of personality and cultural upbringing? Does the offender have the necessary knowledge to the nature of the crime to know it’s severity? Can it be believed that it was truly an accident? While similar to the history between parties, both individuals (witnesses aside) should be examined with an equally careful eye to answer these questions. Their personalities, occupations, and reliability in the quality of their character factor into any decision making in hand with the nature of the incident.
:blank:
▫️Rule of Law. It must be assessed as to the extent that regulation was broken, so that the equivalent outcome in kind can be provided. The severity should never exceed the punishment. Repeated behavior should be factored in. The scale of the infraction, the number of the affected crew members, the disruption in departmental function, and loss of credits in the SCCV Horizon’s operations culminate in a melting pot to reach an agreeable resolution.
:blank:
OOC Aspects
From a storytelling perspective, the key variable in any outcome that can negatively impact a character boils down to: Does it make a good story? The influence of CCIA is naturally a system that can very well decide a player’s continued enjoyment of a character. Just as it is a source of validating player actions, and bringing their consequences as well. It’s a responsibility that needs to be a rewarding interaction and feel like in filing an IR or sending a fax, there won’t be a threat to a gimmick or a demoralizing, ridiculous intervention.
:blank:
With the ability to observe from a meta insight OOC, it’s pivotal to make as uniquely tailored and gratifying development for the players as possible. Similarly, it’s expected that players cooperate to make a compelling engagement from it. Their IC actions may have lead to a path that demotes their character, for example, but from it can be a redemption arc that sets them on the right path.
:blank:
Naturally, there are others. Repeat offenses, the willingness of the character (and player) to take it on the chin, and just how bad it truly was. Most of all, though, it should be an obstacle to overcome, not solely a punishing experience in the sense of railroading them any more than necessary. There are certainly instances where fucking around and finding out is warranted. Still, it should be a decision that carries weight to reflect their appropriately saddled dues from the world but leaves the door open for their personal stories to grow from it.
:blank:
We’re ultimately here to have fun, enjoy some collaborative writing, and share a unique medium that has depth in game mechanics, rich lore, and more. Let’s make it a good time.
:blank:

    How do you feel about the current iteration of Corporate Regulations? Do you feel like it is in a good spot, or could some improvements be made?


I’ll be the first to say I’m not intimately familiar with them. I try and absorb as much relevant information necessary to set out on whatever role (be it a department or otherwise IC) and learn as I go. I couldn’t comment in good faith on any rewordings needed nor additions that we would need. It covers a wide breadth of rules necessary to keep a functioning ship afloat while flexible enough to adjust to the myriad of scenarios that present themselves. As I gain experience, if chosen, it would be an interest of mine to see them tested in each case I receive to see where improvements can be made, if any. As is, my knowledge is limited to whatever outcomes I pick up IC from cases that my character hears about, and what’s on the wiki. I prefer to see them in action with a comfortable variety that I can understand their application before I make comments. To rework/improve a system, you need to experience it first.
:blank:

    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?


By definition, the role is a reactive one. The agency in handling disputes by far and large should fall on the player’s hands, particularly Command. It’s expected that in entrusting them with responsibility, that they’re capable of handling the reins and resolving most conflicts that wouldn’t necessitate reaching out to Central. It’s already hard enough to play an antagonist that can reliably make new and compelling gimmicks, but one that has to face possible intervention with CCIA is brutally demoralizing. The effort is to build on player initiative, not suffocate it. Of course, there can be ways to get involved that do still make an enjoyable experience.
:blank:
With that in mind, the key factor here is severity. A fax to the CCIA is, due to their rarity in most rounds I’ve played since I’ve gotten here, having assumed it’s gone through the chain of command and it’s a necessary step to handle the matter at hand. Shit has hit the fan, we’ve done what we can, it’s now beyond us, we need help. It’s close to a last resort, if already that. A situation where the nuke onboard is compromised, the threat is uncontainable and casualties are sufficient enough to require emergency aid, or complete loss of leadership in an ongoing crisis can see CCIA involvement. Whether it’s preparing an emergency response team, advising Command, or preserving the corporation’s investments/crew in the face of total loss.
:blank:
Even with these scenarios, and they do happen, it doesn’t typically end in any CCIA involvement. If and when it does, it should take every pain to make sure it will build on the roleplay, involve as many players as possible, and slot perfectly as a natural/organic response to the predicament. There will always be instances where some don’t receive it well, but so long as it’s logically/narratively sound and justifiable, it has its place in the weaving tapestry of a round.
:blank:
4.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. 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?
:blank:
This draws heavily from the factors that go into an IC overview of an altercation. More often than not, both will be at fault to some degree in the first place, giving us clear need on a detailed, deeper analysis. Understanding their prior history gives me clarity as to the likeliness of future offenses as well as what factors lead to the instigation. A temporary truce isn’t always a lasting one. It helps determine if and which individual acted in bad faith, with mal intent, and whether the regulations broken in question are severe. In the case of disrupting active operations across multiple departments, it’s already an indicator that involvement should be heavily considered. The degree of it doesn’t always have to be severe. Both parties running around across the ship and pushing each other, walking into departments/disrupting/being nuisances is far different from actively breaking into one or the other’s department and putting employees in harm’s way or themselves.
:blank:
In essence, punishment is likely in any scenario. The variables surrounding the incident are what will determine how long, harsh, or involved it needs to be. Keeping in mind that it may have already surpassed standard crew and even potentially Command involvement, it can be as simple as enforcing that they keep to their work areas (in the event of a Chef vs Bartender dispute), enforcing a no contact order, or more invasive such as a temporary job transfer (Both cargo techs, unable to avoid contact, one transferred to Janitor, other to Librarian). The punishment should fit the crime.
:blank:
:blank:

    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?


While OOC communication can be important, I value the integrity of the IC environment for the round at large. Gimmicks are difficult to execute, time consuming, and always subject to criticism. Players can ask that we don’t get involved, but the situation at hand is what determines that. The best we can do is work as amicably as possible with them to ensure it accurately fits the circumstances. The round time is late where most are looking to start winding down from the events of the round and reach a resolution.
:blank:

However, there’s still enough time to investigate. I would send a confirmation that the matter is being looked into, with the agent opening a communication with Central Command’s Hephaestus Liaison to confirm the approximate records of the antagonist. Assuming I have enough time, I will try and write up an NPC’s records that closest fits an authentic record for the Captain (or present Command) to review and confront the antagonist with. The idea being that they forged their identity and took the place of the intended Hephaestus rep that was supposed to arrive on the Horizon, they might later discover. It would be just open ended enough to let them uncover it themselves or, if the antag is clever enough,to keep up the illusion but face consequences for their actions.
:blank:

This gives agency from both sides of the spectrum. It tasks Security/Investigators with trying to match the details, gives validity to the antagonist in their gimmick with a short, quick background to how they got there, and promotes a grounded response that doesn’t immediately shut down the gimmick or take away the ability for the crew to get involved. It plays into the principles I abide by in progressing, enhancing, and building on player initiatives/ideas.
:blank:

    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?



A consular, much like a liaison, is held to a higher standard in the expectations of their behavior as a crew member. They have the authority to represent an important faction in the SCC. Unbecoming actions, such as the illustrated, are comfortable grounds to revoke their privileges. However, CCIA can only operate with the knowledge it can acquire/has on hand. If Command did not provide this or include it in the request, the only matter that would be investigated is what was included. It isn’t the CCIA’s role to gimp the antagonist, ruin a gimmick, or go beyond their means if the circumstances aren’t present for anything more than what was asked. Trying to use meta information to include the murder or what Command failed to do is bad practice. If Command responds with clarification to the chargesof* murder, that would still fall under their domain – and by extension Security - to resolve in the round of their own accord.