Ramke
Yesterday at 23:32
sure, you're happy to ask questions if you're ever confused or uncertain about the question
and bear in mind you're not expected to know internal CCIA policies, treat the questions as how you'd go about them and your thoughts on them
so let's kick off with this one:

PinkestKitten
Today at 23:33
Yeye.

Ramke
Today at 23:33
What IC and OOC aspects do you believe should be considered when deciding on the resolution of an incident report?

PinkestKitten
Today at 23:36
Well, on the OOC aspect whether it was antagonist related is a very big one on whether to handle an IR at all, from what I remember. And if the behavior was handled by an admin/mod/whoever in round an OOC punishment probably shouldn't be compounded with an IC punishment from CCIA in most cases to prevent that feeling of being 'targetted' unless it was egregious.

Though on an IC aspect, I imagine a lot of things should go into it. Like, the context of a situation, the history of the character (in terms of IRs and security arrests and all that other fun stuff), how forthcoming and honest they were in the interviews. How others reported said incident, things like that. Since the interviews happen for a reason, getting that information to translate into the resolution's probably the biggest part to consider. Like, what's relevant and what's not, and how it adds up against procedure and stuff.

Ramke
Today at 23:38
perfect, moving on with the next one:
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?

PinkestKitten
Today at 23:41
Honestly, I'm not super versed on the regulation stuff outside of the security legality stuff. I remember some of them situationally but I've always been a person who thought that longwinded or extended writing should be easily compressed if it's not fluff. I think the actionable stuff is in a good place, but a lot of the directives could use some trimming in my opinion, as a lot of them are a bit of a mouthful sometimes. There also seems to be a lot of wordlessly agreed things CCIA has that players don't know about that are mentioned in places like #serious_discussion which tends to throw things through a loop more, so having a place for those to be properly documented is also probably a good step.

Ramke
Today at 23:42
Could you provide an example of one of these wordlessly agreed things?

PinkestKitten
Today at 23:44
Recently it was a discussion about using department funds as discretionary funds to promote RP in a department, and CCIA determined that was not allowed and using those funds is a big nono for stuff like that. (Though the given examples were like, pizza parties and stuff it was stated as a general statement.) It more or less feels like a mechanical holdover that department heads get access to the account if they can't use their discretion as management to promote RP, especially with it requiring a whitelist, but that determination isn't written anywhere (like directives, or even head of staff pages) that players can access.

Ramke
Today at 23:45
I see - thankfully we're formalising the state of ship/department funds very soon so it's clear to everyone, we've picked up on that one
moving onto the next one, there'll be a few scenarios here, just curious as to how you'd handle them:
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?

PinkestKitten
Today at 23:49
Well, the claim is that the spat or whatever happened distracted multiple departments, so it'd be important to check with the involved people listed; if someone didn't list that something was major in their IR for example, but said it later, it's probably a bit of an exaggeration to get their way. Especially if they're pushing for a punishment on someone. So checking with everyone listed during their interviews and so on would be prudent to see how it affected departments or otherwise. There might be some OOC ability to check round logs as tcomms is logged canonically or some such to see if it was even mentioned on comms. And it's also important to note that if two people resolved something amongst themselves, it isn't always legally (or regulatorily, in this case?) acceptable to just not be punished for it, as the regulations exist for a reason. Just because two people fist fight it out and apologize doesn't mean they didn't bash each other's nose in or something, right? But it also depends on the severity of things, and how distracting it actually was to multiple departments to determine whether they should be punished and all.
It's not quite cut-and-dry.

Ramke
Today at 23:51
Indeed it isn't, let's move onto the next scenario, this one's specific and a bit more tricky:
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?

PinkestKitten
Today at 23:52
Can we define 'too far' here, as you said specific? Because is it Command's belief that it is 'too far,' or CCIA's belief that it's 'too far' to reasonably be representatives?

Ramke
Today at 23:54
Too far as in unreasonable and unrealistic of Hephaestus representatives lore-wise, to provide a real example, they were found breaking into the CE's quarters and acted extremely confrontational when stopped by Security

PinkestKitten
Yesterday at 23:58
That's a red flag, but I wouldn't go out of my way to destroy a gimmick immediately if that was the case; especially if they discussed the gimmick pre-emptively. If they were masquerading as them for their gimmick, it'd be easier to send an immediate denial. However, if they discussed it and it was 'allowed,' I'd try to play along as best I could without shutting it down or empowering it. Delays in processing for the fax until Security can properly handle them to see if they go loud or not to determine if it should simply mime what people are thinking if they draw guns and start a standoff, or a confirmation that they're Hephaestus employees but under the judgement of the Vessel's Captain or Captain-level decisions for things like any other representatives aboard (as they have a role) would be, and they're subject to those regulations. Which means that for those crimes they should still be arrested, but they are representatives, right?

I suppose it really depends on a lot of factors that are hard to discuss unless you're watching a round. I guess there could be hard Yes/No's internally, but I think it'd be more entertaining for everyone to try and play along without gimping Command's ability to perform their jobs as whitelisted players, and without empowering the antagonist to the point command or security can't act. As that's not really the job of CCIA, as far as I'm aware.

Ramke
Today at 00:00
very good, aaaand the last one of the lot, this time with a d*minian:
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?

PinkestKitten
Today at 00:01
How bad was the injury, as reported?

Ramke
Today at 00:01
They had to be taken to medical with fractures
maybe even an arterial, if they used the wrestling book

PinkestKitten
Today at 00:04
I would say that, in that instance, regardless of their actions as an antagonist, what was put in the report to Command is more adequate. I'd give them a few minutes to amend the report, or see if they were going to amend the report before I decided; and if they weren't in a timely fashion I'd probably not revoke their privileges unless they mentioned near-lethal damages (arterials would count, in my opinion). As otherwise it's just a moderate infraction from security and a not very-long timer unless they want to be extreme about it (though they've done a lot more since then). So contextually, with what was faxed, and what the person on the other end has to work with, they wouldn't know much else beyond the written word.
Though I suppose, also contextually, if the Captain was requesting it and the Consular abused their office's immunity and it needed to be revoked to prevent said arrest for a while, I'd see myself approving revoking that privilege. So I suppose it depends on context of how that report came across the fax machine.

Ramke
Today at 00:06
perfect, that's all the questions that I have
anything else you'd want to ask or are curious about before I post the logs off to bear/the forums?

PinkestKitten
Today at 00:07
Not overly. I think that was pretty good, all considered. That didn't take as long as I figured.