evandorf

alright then lets do this, remember there are no right or wrong answers, don't overthink it:
What IC and OOC aspects do you believe should be considered when deciding on the resolution of an incident report?

Evandorf — Today at 9:45 PM
IC aspects to be considered would be things like character testimony, interviews, and other facts obtained during the investigation. Past character history should be taken into account as well as any previous actions.

OOC aspects would be things like player history and/or player intent. It's more difficult to determine at times but can be pertinent.
Sorry about the delay, I had a minor animal emergency.
Lanze — Today at 9:45 PM
No worries, I'm here all day now
let's keep going:
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?
Evandorf — Today at 9:49 PM
I think regulations are writen as well as they can be. They can be awkward to negotiate in-round but I think that's mainly due to how most Sec execute them and the nature of the game itself. The benefit of an IR is that you can take your time, speak with people at length and start to shift through the chaos.
Lanze — Today at 9:49 PM
alright, the next one's the halfway point:
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?
Evandorf — Today at 10:00 PM
I think a heavier hand could be warranted in a situation where a person or small group is trying to dominate the narrative of a round. If an antag is trying to push a gimmick that relies on buy-in from command and for whatever reason active command is not engaging or sends a "Hey is this real?" fax then that would be a good time to provide more solid guidance.

Conversely if command is attempting to integrate with a gimmick and the antags keep redefining and creating more ridiculous scenarios to try and force the crew into following a specific plan of action and the antags are ignoring the other ways that the crew might be involving themselves then I think it would be fine to reign it in with some clarification.

With antags it's a little easier since you have access to aooc and can make recommendations or give them help if needed.
Lanze — Today at 10:02 PM
nice, nice. Here's the next one:
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?
Evandorf — Today at 10:07 PM
I would look into the extent of the escalation and the IC cost of punishment. If the events reported were severe then it's likely that even though the parties have resolved their differences the regulatory infractions need to be addressed.

On the other hand if the situation is minor, then the cost of punishment might not be worth the disruption to the characters, their departments, ect. A warning, a slap on the wrist, might be appropriate but it depends on circumstances.
I would also be slightly interested in the intent of the reporter, though I don't know that I would look into it too often. It seems like something you could easily get lost in the weeds in and probably not get a concrete answer on.
Lanze — Today at 10:10 PM
we are on the final stretch:
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?
Evandorf — Today at 10:17 PM
Seeing as the round is almost at the 2 hr mark I would think that they need to start wrapping things up if they hadn't gotten their gimmick off the ground by this point. If the antagonists have been acting in good faith and are truly working to some goal I might send an initial response citing a need for more time and follow up with a second fax in another 10 - 15 minutes. If they don't have a plan or a goal they're moving toward I would be more likely to send a truthful response sooner and not afford them any more delays.
Lanze — Today at 10:18 PM
alright, last 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?
Evandorf — Today at 10:27 PM
First, I would not take anything into consideration that was not reported to me. As for the duel and injury I would remind then that representatives serve time for medium and severe infractions, the same as any other crewmember but without context of the other things they've done in the round I wouldn't see it necessary to revoke their privileges.
Going back to your earlier question regarding regulations, Directive 12 is something that I would make clearer.
In the first line it says that command staff can request the privileges be revoked and in the second line it reads that the Captain can revoke immunity for the office. It makes it sound like only CCIA has the authority to revoke the representative's ability to not serve time for minor infractions and that the Captain has the authority to remove directive 12 protections on only the office.