Cool. So question one
1. During a round of Ninja, you are faxed by Station Command inquiring about an “inspector” who claims to have been sent by the company to evaluate each of the station's departments. How do you respond, and why?
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 8:24 PM
How far in the round would we be?
BrayceToday at 8:25 PM
It could be at any point in the round sometims early, and sometimes late.
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 8:25 PM
Okay!
If it was early in the round, I would respond that due to a paperwork error, it will take some time to confirm their identity, but allow them to carry out their work in non-sensitive areas of the station. They should be held to standard cooperate regulations, and requests should be considered by command staff to assist in their inspections. We will be replying later in the shift with a confirmation of the inspectors credentials once we fix the error on our end.
I don't want to kill the Ninja's gimmick before it gets off the ground, so I want to allow them time to play it out. Plus, we are the universe's largest megacorporation, managing hundreds of stations and fleets of ships across the galaxy. Work place inspections are a pretty common thing, and often will happen as a surprise. Because of this massive scale, I feel like these sorts of slips in communication would be common, and something that get's fixed later on down the line.
Now, if it was later in the round...
Upon review of current inspection schedules, you are not due for any inspections on this shift. We advise your command team confirm their identity and purpose on the station. Update us on the situation as it develops further, and take note of any sensitive information that may have been accessed.
So this response would be for late in the round, last half an hour or later. The Ninja has has ample time to make their moves and actions, so they should hopefully be in a place to recover from this. I also left this with some wiggle room for them- maybe they are at the wrong station, or maybe they are from another group- who knows! I wouldn't call it benefit of the doubt, but it would allow them room to respond and recover but provide the station with something to grab onto.
BrayceToday at 8:38 PM
Alright
2. During a round of Crossfire, you are faxed by Station Command about a team of mercenaries who have reported a band of pirates operating in the area. They wish to offer their services to the station as additional security. Command is asking you for your advice on the situation. How do you respond, and why?
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 8:49 PM
I would take a couple of factors into consideration. The biggest is how staffed the security department is at this time. Our security department is trained and trusted by the company to defend our stations, and we pay good money to equip and train them. These mercenaries on the other hand are strangers, who's loyalty is bought by the person with the most credits. If the security department is full and staffed, the response would be along the lines of: "While their information is apricated and noted, station security should be readily equipped to deal with threats to the station. We advise they contact Central Command and fill out proper paperwork to apply for station security or response teams. This way, they will receive proper approval, payment, and access to station resources in case of a security issue."
If the station lacked a full security team: "Due to the threat posed by a possible attack on the station, we advise allowing the mercenaries access to the station for it's defense. Should an attack occur, your internal security department should co-ordinate with the mercenaries to maximize defense of the station. We also advise that these mercenaries should take the front lines in the event of an attack, so as to minimize station personnel loss."
For this one, they aren't our employee's, and we are paying for their services. It's easier to hire another mercenary then train another member of security. Our employees are an investment at some level, and we would rather lose something more expendable.
BrayceToday at 8:51 PM
Got it.
3. You receive an Emergency Broadcast System message from the station’s Artificial Intelligence. It claims that there is an emergency situation, and requests an immediate ERT deployment. How do you respond?
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 8:59 PM
The stations command team should be the ones swiping for a distress beacon and contacting us. These services are expensive, and we have a two swipe system for a reason. Should the station have a staffed command team, my response would be: "Emergency Response Teams are to be requested by command staff members. Have members of your command team launch a distress beacon directly, or have them send a report detailing the situation on board. We will prepare a team in response team in the event that a response is received detailing the situation."
If they lack command staff, "Please provide a detailed situation report, outlining the situation on station. Upon confirmation of a serious threat, a response team will readied and sent to your station. We await your reply."
While a possible threat to our station is serious, AI glitches happen, as much as we want to deny it. This could simply be a damaged law caused by an electrical storm. We have our command team on station to call for teams, and we won't be sending one until we have confirmation of a serious threat. I would be highly skeptical of a single EBS when they have multiple command members present.
BrayceToday at 9:00 PM
Excellent
4. You receive a fax from the Internal Affairs Agent, who claims that the Captain has been abusing his authority by removing all of the vending machines from the station and has demoted an engineer for littering. How do you respond?
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 9:03 PM
Just to make sure, we are talking about a a Liaison?
BrayceToday at 9:06 PM
In this case it would be okay to assume a NT Liason
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 9:13 PM
Well, on one hand, the Captain has absolute authority on the station and is loyalty implanted to always think in our best interest. On the other hand, the Getmore ™️ brand is a directly owned by NanoTrasen, and a great source of credits for our stations. While I may not have the full situation, I would send a fax to the Captains office (and cc the Liaison) with, "Hello Captain ___. We would like to remind you that most vending machines on your station are owned by Getmore ™️ , and are a sizable source of income on our stations. The crew rely on our products for nourishment, and should have access to these products to bolster station funds. We ask that you return these vending machines to allow for greater profits aboard your station."
Now, the situation with the engineer is surprising. While littering could loosely be considered a form of vandalism, according to regulations it should only really equate to a minor fine. Now, if this was a serious re-occurring issue of an engineer littering and trashing their workstation at large, ignoring constant orders to cease, that would be more serious. Even then, it may not warrant a demotion unless this was a serious, reoccurring issue. Assuming we have no prior information, we would finish the fax with "Regarding the demotion of your station engineer for littering, we request that you forward us any and all paperwork regarding this and previous incidents to confirm that they broken regulations that would warrant a demotion. If no such paperwork exists, we suggest they be returned to their previous title so as to better benefit your station."
In the end, I would trust our Liaison because they are Loyalty Implanted as well, and are thinking of our bottom line. We sent them there to bolster and gauge things like crew moral, profits, and securing contract extensions (to name a few).
BrayceToday at 9:16 PM
Okay
5. In your opinion, how much of a role should Central Command play in the affairs of the station? When is it appropriate for them to directly intervene, and how much should they attempt to shape the round when they do?
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 9:25 PM
I think that Central Command should be something present, watching, but doesn't often meddle with the station unless asked or the situation is out of control. As I mentioned earlier, we are trying to manage every single station, ship, and installation owned by NanoTrasen. IC'ly, the hands off approach is required because we can't spread ourselves too thin. We need to be able to give focused responses when needed, and if we meddle to much in one place, we may be unable to deal with something that matters. OOC'ly, the focus of the game is our station, our players, and our antags. It's not CCIA. We can guide the round when it's asked for, and nudge them in a direction that suits the company, but we aren't the focus of the game.
If and when Central Command intervenes in a round, it should be as minor as possible (unless it somehow would benefit the ongoing rounds gimmick. Even then, it shouldn't be much). I would say that it's appropriate when it's asked for directly by the station, or things have fallen apart so hard that the station is on fire and command is begging for help. When they do intervene, it should be the smallest action possible. Like I mentioned before, they aren't the focus of the round. The players are. Central should nudge the rounds in a direction, not force it. The largest response should be sending an ERT, but even then, it should be incredibly rare and only serve as a last resort that would add to the round.
BrayceToday at 9:27 PM
Okay
6. What do you believe is the purpose of the Incident Report system?
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 9:35 PM
I see the Incident Report system as a way to build characters and the company out of game, as well as give people a voice to state their grievances. The IR system allows us to build our characters outside of the game by giving an actual, company run process to deal with issues they had in game. It makes the company feel more real by seeing this bureaucratic process work. As the IR progresses, characters can roleplay and eventually deal with the adversity of the outcome. Maybe they need to deal with serious issues in their life, maybe they need to deal with a drug habit, who knows. It provides a serious point a characters life where they have to make a choice: change and do better, or stay as they are and worsen. This system also allows us to specifically deal with major issues in a round ICly, and have our voices heard. It provides a sense of realism, that NanoTrasen is a bit more real and helps with our suspension of disbelief. Since we can see this process working, we can assume there are others and a whole company past the station.
BrayceToday at 9:38 PM
Awesome. Okay last question
7. In resolving an Incident Report, when should a character receive significant disciplinary action (such as a demotion), as opposed to a lighter response such as a warning or retraining? Under what circumstances would you consider terminating a character's employment?
🎭ATD FluffyBirb🎭Today at 9:48 PM
I believe that there should be two factors that play into that. One, how many times have they been found guilty of an offense? Is this a reoccurring issue, or a first time deal? Two: What was the infraction? Some things like physical attacks on crew are more serious then disrespect or verbal abuse. While the IR system makes this all more real and holds people accountable, these characters are someone's creations, that they have put hours of work into crafting (usually).  If this their first offense and/or a small infraction, they should receive a lighter response. We shouldn't demote someone for their first offense unless it was a serious infraction. Things like demotions can really change a character, though it can also put them in a place to improve, and force them to make a choice to fix themselves. Now, if this is a repeat offender who isn't responding to our warning and retraining, then maybe they aren't fit to fill the position they are in until they shape up. As more IR's are leveled against someone, the response should proportionally grow.
Terminating employment is serious. It can essentially remove a character from the game, so it should be a last resort. I would say that if someone were to have their employment terminated, they should be committing serious infractions again and again. It should be a case that has no hope of improving, with either a serious crime and/or continuous IR's against them. I would be incredibly sparing on this front, since again, it is removing the character unless they somehow can appeal and return to employment.
BrayceToday at 9:50 PM
Awesome, and that completes the interview.