Ramke
18:49
okay here we go, feel free to take your time

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

Sue
18:54
When it comes to IC, the severity of the offense and the offender's intent are probably the most important; there is a stark difference between, say, someone accidentally violating protocol and someone going out of their way to do something they know is a violation. Circumstances are also a factor to consider. For example, if someone is goaded into a physical engagement than 'fighting words' or extenuating circumstances should be considered, as well.

OOC involvement should be centered around transparency and communication. Conversing with both involved parties, getting an unbiased review of what actually happened and then framing that in the lens of IC conduct. Incident reports are meant to be an IC arbiter of IC conduct so I don't really think OOC aspects play too big a role in the final conclusion.

Ramke
18:56

    How do you feel about the current presence of HR/CCIA function? Do you think it is in a good spot, or would any changes/improvements be beneficial? What would you like to see different, if anything?

Sue
18:59
I believe it may be more interesting or 'fun' to have HR/CCIA perform small 'inspections' or audits of department with a little more regularity, where scheduling and player interest allows. Preferably during extended rounds due to canonicity concerns. But overall I think having HR be a slightly more organic and present force on the ship, even if it's one audit a month or however it suits people, would be interesting.

That's my personal opinion. When it comes to the mechanical aspect - interviews, incident reports, and diplomatic incidents (rip Dominians) I think there is nothing that needs to be changed or improved there.

Ramke
19:03
excellent, last one from brain poking:

    CCIA, through faxes and announcements, can sway the round heavily in response to faxes or antagonistic actions. Could you provide an example, from your own experiences of rounds, on what would have been an interesting response from CCIA to sway a round's flow, or to give goals to crew?

Sue
19:08
I think it very heavily depends on the gametype; I personally feel that CCIA shouldn't meddle or diminish the gimmicks of some antagonist types (like mercenary) who board and represent themselves as X inspector or Y diplomat or a traitor who says Y or X. I remember playing security and a few times command would fax for confirmation to get something vague in return that neither confirmed nor denied their story; in these instances, letting things progress naturally was the best call, I feel, and CCIA should only give a more concrete answer in the most extreme circumstances (the inspector has murdered the Captain).

However, for other gametypes, like revolution, I think CCIA can make things a little more interesting for revs and loyalists by providing substance and concrete corporate backing to whatever the proposed gimmick is. I think the main takeaway overall is that CCIA should not be trampling an antagonist's gimmick underfoot or doing anything to handicap them - they should be finding ways to enable the round to progress naturally while also outlining some objectives for the crew as necessary. (IE, research the changeling, or enforce this rev announcement, or whatever).

Ramke
19:11
perfect, onto scenarios:

    A Unathi and a Solarian started fighting each other, to the point of both of them requiring surgery. You learn through investigations it was because the Solarian was racist and kept goading a response out of the Unathi. The Solarian was much more injured, to a life-threatening point. What would you think would be a fair resolution/consequence to both?

you can ask for clarification or additional details if you wish

Sue
19:16
In this scenario, the Unathi would have been 'justified' (and I say this with quotation marks) in an initial scuffle because the Solarian's racism constitutes 'fighting words'; ie he was goaded by unprotected speech from the Solarian. Had a small slapfight been the end of it, I would say remedial training courses for the Solarian and an appropriate fine should be levied for both of them.

However, when the fight progressed to the point that the Solarian was critically and grievously injured, the 'extenuating circumstances' of 'inciting speech' or 'fighting words' stops being that much of a shield. In this instance I think I would have to first determine if either person involved in this IR had a history of this conduct, as that may make things more serious. Assuming not, I would probably see the Solarian issued a fine and instruct him that he would need to attend mandatory species sensitivity training for a period of time.

The Unathi, for escalating the physical, violent interaction to a more serious level, should be demoted for a period of time and forced to take mandatory anger management classes, with a likely heftier fine for going from what was a simple battery charge to practically assault. If either of them have had repeat incidents of this kind of conduct, then the punishment should worsen.

Ramke
19:17

    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?

Sue
19:22
Like I said before, I believe the onus is not on CCIA to dismantle an antagonist's gimmick. When you say they have 'taken things a bit too far' then I assume they have transgressed to charges that would constitute a red or orange-level infraction. In the fax, I would remind the command of the SSCV Horizon that any representative on the ship can have their immunity rights revoked by the order of a captain or acting captain. I would remind them of corporate regulations regarding the conduct of corporate executives:

-The representative does not serve brig time for low level infractions, the fine alternative can be used in those cases.

-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.



In this case, I would advise command that if they believe that the representative(s) have indeed committed medium and high level infractions that they are empowered to act as they see appropriate. I would suggest that they ensure they have ironclad paperwork because any action by ship security against a corporate executive will be reviewed by the appropriate authorities after the end of the shift, and if they take unilateral action frivolously it would be very bad for them.

In this way, I do not 'blow' the Hephaestus antagonist's gimmick or reveal their cover and I remind command of already existing regulations that are present to help inform their decisions, while making sure they understand that if they go off half-cocked there would likely be serious career consequences.

Ramke
19:27
And finally:

    An Executive Officer sent you a fax informing you that the Captain is acting unreasonable and that the Executive Officer, alongside outraged Security, have forcefully stripped the Captain of their role, assuming the role of Acting Captain. You learn that the command vote to override the Captain has failed because of an Operations Manager not backing the motion. The majority of the crew were outraged on moral grounds, but the Captain was acting as the ultimate authority of the ship. What would you look into, and how would you treat the action by the crew/Captain?

Sue
19:28
When you say the crew are outraged on 'moral grounds', do you mean outraged at what the Captain did, or at him being stripped of command?

Ramke
19:29
what the captain did

Sue
19:35
Firstly I would attempt to gauge what exactly it was that the Captain was doing that ended up with so much of the crew outraged and angry. The context here would be important in trying to visualize state of mind. But at the end of it all, from the beginning, the actions of Security and the XO are in violation of corporate regulations. Per protocol,

The vessel's assigned Captain has full authority over the operation of the vessel and the attached shuttles. He or she is authorized to shut down departments at their discretion, reassign crew members, issue direct orders to all crew members of the ship, and take actions within reason that may violate regulations in non-standard situations.

The Captain is trusted to act in the best interests of the company, crew, and vessel he or she is assigned to. Any complaints or concerns over the Captain's decisions should be addressed after their orders have been carried out, and after the situation that prompted those orders has been resolved.



The Captain can be removed by a unanimous command vote if they are deemed unfit for captainship by the rest of command[...]



No matter what decisions the Captain made, they are authorized to make them. When the vote failed for the Captain's removal, then the appropriate course of action would have been to do as one is ordered and then bring it up to the appropriate authorities in the aftermath. What the XO and Security have done is engage in mutiny, which is a serious crime. The Captain is placed in their position and given wide breadth to operate even in violation of regulations due to the unpredicitability of deep-space exploration. The regulations that govern their authority and methods of removal are quite clear.
Unless what the Captain was doing was so terribly serious (such as trying to scuttle the ship for no real reason, or for firing on an unarmed civilian vessel) that it necessitated such a brash action, I can think of very few circumstances where the actions undertaken the XO and Security would be proper.
A subsequent investigation and focus could be placed on the Captain's decision, and what they were doing, why they did what they did - but as I said, unless it was so supremely serious to necessitate their removal (and even what happened during the arc with Elyra and the FSF wasn't enough), there is likely not going to be a retroactive justification for the XO and Security to have done what they did, and the consequences would be serious.