Standard Operating Procedure Update

[EvadableMoxie]

I don't necessarily have an opinion on who the IAA should report to, but I disagree with the concept that Command level issues and crew level issues have no overlap. Command wouldn't be 'command' if it wasn't responsible for the crew and their actions. 

If the coroner and chemist are in a pissing match and as a result chems aren't being made and Medbay can't do it's job, that becomes a Command level issue because the CMO should be stepping in to make sure the work gets done.  And if the CMO can't or won't, the rest of Command should be making sure that CMO is removed and replaced with one who will. If they don't do that, they are just as responsible for Medbay not having drugs as the chemist is.  Moreso, since the buck stops with them.

So let's say that the chemist and coroner are fighting.  They aren't getting drugs made.  The CMO can't or won't fix it, nor will any other department head.  Who's supposed to handle this?  IAA since it's an interdepartmental spat?  Or the NT rep, because command isn't do their job? The lines are pretty blurred.

 

[SomeGuy9283]

The rule I use on whether a representative should get involved in a non-command issue is as follows:

• Does it involve an IAA or CC VIP?

Or

1. Does it pose a major threat to profitability? If yes, proceed.
2. Can the department handle it? If no, proceed.
3. Are the IAAs available to deal with it? If no, proceed.
4. Is the HoP/Captain capable of dealing with it?If no, proceed.
5. If you're at this point, chances are you will need to worry more about the fact that you got here than the issue itself, and should report to CC why such a catastrophic failure in the chain of command has occurred in addition to the issue that sparked it.

[Dinarzad]

13 hours ago, Shadeykins said:

No, it isn't.

This is the same damn thing as the Captain not being allowed to micromanage departments and there being a barrier/separation between the Captain and the regular crew. The NT Rep isn't on the station to deal with the chemist's pissing match with the Coroner, that's what IAA's are for. Honestly if the NT Rep is caught up in stupid little complaints instead of making sure Command is following SoP, they should probably be bwoinked for taking a job and then faffing around and not doing it. By not making this important distinction you give the NT Rep carte blanche over the entirety of the station, a person who can't be fired without admin assistance to boot.

Yeah
The thing with that is, I said 'The NT Rep is the IAA of Command' not that they should do that for entire crew.
Allow me to put it in a different way. A CE is the "Engineer" of command, he does everything a normal engineer, but also provides oversight and does a few special duties.
The CMO is a "Super Doctor", they do everything a doctor does, but also manage the regular doctors.
The RD is Scientist+, trying to keep science nerds from exploding everything but making sure science gets done, typically helping to achieve that.


In all these cases, the underlings of these bosses dhave the same job as said boss, just in a less responsible and less managerial form. an MD is the doctor of the crew, but if someone gets fucked in the Command staff, it is usually the CMO or the Blueshield that are personally responsible for those treatments.
Engineers do work in most areas with the crew, but if Command wants something special modified, it's the CE who gets that done.

Similarly, the IAA is the complaint office of the standard crew, to make sure SoP and Space Law are properly applied.
And the NT Rep is capable of providing that same role *IF* no IAA are present in the round, but otherwise? They are the IAA of command, they make sure the other heads are on task and doing things legally, with NT's best interests at heart.
They both have the same job in that sense. And one can "Take over" the other's job if required because of a lack of the other, They overlap to the point the NT Rep is far better suited to the goal and task of IAA's then the Magistrate whose authority is Space Law and ONLY Space Law, to the point he can make almost any decree about Space Law.

[GunDOS]

On 4/17/2017 at 8:54 AM, Shadeykins said:

This isn't even to get into the absolute nonsense that is karma-gating someone who runs a department or having "joint departments". You do realize the NT Rep is subordinate to the HoP, yes? And by allowing the NT Rep control over the IAA's you by extension grant the HoP de facto control over them as well? This isn't even to get into the fact that IAA's will suddenly be able to tell both the HoS, Magistrate, and NT Rep to fuck themselves because they've got three bosses - none of which are ever going to all agree together to do something about a problem IAA.

1

To clear this up, nada. NT Rep's are separate from the chain of command. The only people they report to is CC. If you're talking about the pop-up, that is I believe either a bug or the default setting for it. I would have to do a little code diving to make sure. But from my understanding that is the case.

[GunDOS]

On 4/17/2017 at 8:54 AM, Shadeykins said:

This is the same damn thing as the Captain not being allowed to micromanage departments and there being a barrier/separation between the Captain and the regular crew. The NT Rep isn't on the station to deal with the chemist's pissing match with the Coroner, that's what IAA's are for. Honestly if the NT Rep is caught up in stupid little complaints instead of making sure Command is following SoP, they should probably be bwoinked for taking a job and then faffing around and not doing it. By not making this important distinction you give the NT Rep carte blanche over the entirety of the station, a person who can't be fired without admin assistance to boot.

 

 

 

 

3

I would like to say, that in reality, you have two types of IAA. One that does little to nothing and cryo's, and the often rare bird nowadays that does something. In my experience, if you want something done about someone, you go to the NT Rep, not the IAA. Though this argument has no place here.

As another note, you are the "Nanotrasen Representative" not "Commands IAA" you represent NT. You do your best to make sure NT's Interests are secure, that is why you are there. 

As a final note. I have said before that if I had access to IAA's I could handle more than one case at once. Trust me, on very busy shifts you have three or four to handle. Having one to two guys and a good pAI to help you gives you a team. Making life significantly easier for the NT Rep. You can start to feel quite alone when you can only trust you and your fax machine.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Saul Argon
I had a thought :P

[Shadeykins]

1 hour ago, Saul Argon said:

As a final note. I have said before that if I had access to IAA's I could handle more than one case at once. Trust me, on very busy shifts you have three or four to handle. Having one to two guys and a good pAI to help you gives you a team. Making life significantly easier for the NT Rep. You can start to feel quite alone when you can only trust you and your fax machine.

You could, but we shouldn't make design decisions based off of one player who may not be around for a long time. Alternatively as someone who has played Rep quite a few times, I can say that's a it's a relatively easy job with little overhead even when you have terrible people in Command. People who play NT Rep aren't supposed to be managers, and this just makes NT Rep more of a headache than it's supposed to be since now you're responsible for running a department (which will include hiring, firing, approving transfers, etc).

Not to mention the conundrum this creates when someone tries to fire an IAA who was approved by the NT Rep to transfer in.

As for cases, if you're juggling 3-4 cases something is seriously wrong there. You needn't juggle any amount of cases - find out what's going on (which is dirt simple), advise people on what they should be doing and if they don't write a quick fax and shoot it off to Central. This takes ten minutes, tops.

It sounds like you have a very different idea of how to go about playing an NT Rep, which may not necessarily be a bad thing. I've personally always looked at it for the 2+ years I've had it unlocked as an advisory role, meant to advise and mitigate issues that crop up. This doesn't require a full-fledged investigation because the underlying factors are almost always readily apparent.

16 hours ago, Dinarzad said:

Yeah
The thing with that is, I said 'The NT Rep is the IAA of Command' not that they should do that for entire crew.
Allow me to put it in a different way. A CE is the "Engineer" of command, he does everything a normal engineer, but also provides oversight and does a few special duties.
The CMO is a "Super Doctor", they do everything a doctor does, but also manage the regular doctors.
The RD is Scientist+, trying to keep science nerds from exploding everything but making sure science gets done, typically helping to achieve that.


In all these cases, the underlings of these bosses dhave the same job as said boss, just in a less responsible and less managerial form. an MD is the doctor of the crew, but if someone gets fucked in the Command staff, it is usually the CMO or the Blueshield that are personally responsible for those treatments.
Engineers do work in most areas with the crew, but if Command wants something special modified, it's the CE who gets that done.

Similarly, the IAA is the complaint office of the standard crew, to make sure SoP and Space Law are properly applied.
And the NT Rep is capable of providing that same role *IF* no IAA are present in the round, but otherwise? They are the IAA of command, they make sure the other heads are on task and doing things legally, with NT's best interests at heart.
They both have the same job in that sense. And one can "Take over" the other's job if required because of a lack of the other, They overlap to the point the NT Rep is far better suited to the goal and task of IAA's then the Magistrate whose authority is Space Law and ONLY Space Law, to the point he can make almost any decree about Space Law.

The CMO, RD, CE, etcetera are not supposed to be MD+, Scientist+, or Engineer+. They are supposed to manage their departments but are most often these things because most of the departments are filled with inept people - none of these jobs actually has to lift a finger to do anything (and be full and well within their responsibilities both in SoP and otherwise) so long as they adequately direct their departments. This isn't to get into the fact that they're not karma positions, and you're advocating locking a departmental head behind a karma gate.

In SoP, the only thing the CMO is obligated to do is make sure bodies are being cloned and chemistry isn't making explosives.
Realistically, all the have to do is make sure doctors are healing people.
In practice, this is pretty accurate. About 50% of the successful CMO's aren't actively healing patients.

In SoP, the only thing the RD is obligated to do is make sure borgs are slaved to the AI and that someone is doing research.
Realistically, all they have to do is... Pretty much nothing. Nobody cares about the RD, this is honestly a job that could be removed.
In practice, 99% of RD's do absolutely nothing and nobody notices.

In SoP, the only thing the CE is obligated to do is make sure Atmos/the Engine don't get sabotaged.
Realistically, all they have to do is set up the engine (if other engineers haven't) and tells engineers where to go.
In practice, this is exactly what happens and nobody bats an eye. The engine gets set up, and the CE and Engineers do whatever they feel like.

Also you'll note that in my proposition I outright have a clausal section that states "if no IAA's are present".

Command level issues and crew level issues still have no overlap. If the Coroner and Chemist are having a pissing match, that's the CMO's problem. If the CMO can't deal with it, they elevate to the Captain. The Captain involves the NT Rep, or the NT Rep involves himself when the Captain can't deal with it. There are a lot of layers to this before an NT Rep should ever, ever inject themselves into a situation. The Coroner and Chemist not getting along with each other is not your concern, The CMO being mildly inadequate and not resolving this situation isn't even your concern (though you should advise the Captain about it). The Captain not doing anything about it is immediately your concern. The CMO violating protocol and not cloning bodies is immediately your concern. What individual members of departments are doing however, is not.

This is all the NT Rep should be concerning himself/herself with.

https://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php/Standard_Operating_Procedure_(Command)

https://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php/Chain_of_Command

https://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php/Legal_Standard_Operating_Procedure#Brigging

I think most of you need to legitimately take a step back and think about the implications of what an NT Rep who is hovering over the entirety of the crew is doing. They've got their fingers in way too many damn pies, and it comes off as power tripping (which an NT Rep should certainly not be doing). Not only that but they're going to be blind to any actual issues in Command when they're busy sitting in their office (which too many reps do already) listening to a low-level complaint about how "george melons griffed me!" (because let's be honest, that's 100% of the low-level SoP violations).

You're deliberately being subordinate by not allowing things to be solved at a *LOCAL* level, which is the primary objective of the NT Rep. Even incredible IAA's give their reports to the head of that department to resolve, they don't go in and try to throw their non-existent weight around.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Shadeykins

[GunDOS]

Quote

You could, but we shouldn't make design decisions based off of one player who may not be around for a long time.

 

 

Firstly, I was just expressing my opinion using the noun "I". The point of this thread is to express opinions please refrain from attacking myself and not my arguments.

Quote

I think most of you need to legitimately take a step back and think about the implications of what an NT Rep who is hovering over the entirety of the crew is doing. They've got their fingers in way too many damn pies, and it comes off as power tripping (which an NT Rep should certainly not be doing). Not only that but they're going to be blind to any actual issues in Command when they're busy sitting in their office (which too many reps do already) listening to a low-level complaint about how "george melons griffed me!" (because let's be honest, that's 100% of the low-level SoP violations).

2

The Nanotrasen Representative is in fact, a Representative primarily. That is stated in the name. What many NT Rep's have figured out is that if the crew are happy with you, they are much more willing to tell you if their boss is not doing the best job. It's a fallacy to assume that they will report it instantly. There is a trick to balancing your, to use borrowed phrasing "pro bono" work with the main job of making sure command is doing a good job. A NT Rep cannot investigate on a lack of evidence. 

To finish, this thread is not about the NT Rep and their role. It is about SoP and its need to be updated.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Saul Argon
Grammar

[FPK]

I'm going to avoid getting into the debate about specific mechanics, and instead provide a quick summary of each of the current debated topics pertaining to SOP and the original purpose of the thread. The fact that people are debating certain mechanics indicates that there is something wrong, or there is room for improvement. This isn't the thread to debate them. Here, we're identifying the issues, so that we can get into the nitty gritty later on, in specific threads made for each issue. Anyways, lets get on with it.

1. Firing/Demotion Policies, Causes for Demotion/Dismissal. What defines a, " medium-severe breach of Standard Operating Procedure"? How incompetent is someone allowed to be, before it's considered "critical incompetence"? Firing incompetent heads and security proves to be quite a challenge, even with cooperation with the IAAs or NTR. Also, should heads be allowed to detain their underlings, in order to fire them? Alternatively, should refusing to comply with a legal dismissal be considered a crime? It's already considered (petty)theft to not turn in departmental gear when fired. Should (petty)theft be altered to include dismissals? 
2. Engineers following EngSOP. Engineers run off on round start, leaving only a few engineers and the CE to set up the engine. While it's in my opinion that three engineers, including the CE, is the magic number when it comes to setting up the main engine in about standard time, what can be done about the other engineers who just fuck off? Who's at fault when it comes to neglected breaches and repairs? Is it the CE, for failing to organize his men? Is it a specific engineer, working on their own project or otherwise slacking off? Is it the entire department's fault, and if so, should the entire department be held accountable in some way?
3. Geneticists failing to follow SOP, as well as joint leadership. While I think this is an IC issue, akin to people complaining that the chemist didn't make some specific chemical available in some specific quantity, that the chemist could have only known if they kept up with the meta, it does warrant some attention. While the coroner job is likely to be added soon, and they'll be able to handle corpses without the distraction of the genetics console, what can be done to make cloning a higher priority for this odd joint job? Furthermore, there's the odd question of which head is in charge of the geneticist. There's three options from what I can tell: one, leave it as it is; two, leave the joint leadership, but better define which parts of geneticist SOP falls under which department, and therefore clarifying which head is allowed to fire them for what breach; and three, just divorce the CMO and RD already.
4. A department creeping into another department's duties. The brig physician recreating medbay in the brig. The engineering department creating their own R&D/robotics set up. Assistants creating ghetto medbays. Thankfully, no one's tried to recreate the brig in cargo yet. While from a gameplay and OOC standpoint, no one is restricted in what knowledge their character knows. An engineer can preform surgery, an assistant can handle a shotgun, ect. However, one department creeping into another department's duties does raise questions. What machines should one department be allowed to have? Why can't an assistant or cargo tech open up a ghetto surgical room? What's to stop research, engineering, or even cargo, from building a public autolathe, protolathe, mech fabricator, or other department specific machine?
5. What to do with vampires and changelings. Does security execute them on the spot for being what they are? Do they attempt to bring them into CC, if they believe they can control them? Should vampires and changelings that give themselves up be allowed parole or permabrig? These are questions that the admins are going to have to answer, because it highlights a significant problem with both game modes: If we can detain, do we kill anyways?
6. Civil Disputes. No one uses them. I personally have never seen a use for them. If two crew members are having a problem, as an IAA I can just take each one into my office and work out a compromise between them, talking to each crew member individually at first, then both at the same time later. But, I digress. Should we keep civil disputes, or rework civil disputes as to make them viable?
7. Nanotrasen Representative. Should the NTR be allowed to work with all cases relating to SOP, or just command related ones? Should the NTR bother with the inner workings of each department, if only to inspect the department's head's work? Should the NTR bother with SL, considering the magistrate and IAAs also work with SL? While I strongly encourage the NTR to work in tandem with the IAAs, what should their cooperation look like? As the IAA, I've gone on investigations with the NTR to determine if a department is working in accordance to SOP and NT's demands. I go to the NTR before I go to CC, considering CC should be a last resort for an IAA. The NTR and IAA's working relationship should be kept, in my opinion. However, considering the overlap, should the NTR have some control over the IAAs, or should they just continue to work on equal ground?
8. Fax SOP. Do we want it? Do we need it? What would it add to the game? Ickly? Oockly?
9. Tiered SOP. What's important, what's not, defining the severity of a breach, ect. Is it too complicated? Can we just remove minor breaches entirely? What is a minor/medium/severe/critical breach of SOP? 
10. Red Alert. Relocating people during red alert; Should it be kept in? How does security enforce it? What about maintenance crawlers on red alert? I typically tell people to get the hell out of maintenance on red alert, but should it be valid to arrest them for it?

There's more, but this goes over most of the hot topics at the time of this post. The rest of this post is just going to be one more quick thing, because I spent like an hour writing this shit.

• Having to pick between ERT and the shuttle. Sometimes, the ERT arrives, then the shuttle comes directly after it. Usually, it's because the ERT is dead, or they were the ones to call it. I'm in favor of removing ERTs as being higher than the captain, as most of the time, the ERT is just a bunch of mooks in hardsuits with fancy guns. If an admin is on, they could easily join in as a CC official and then communicate through the ERT that the official is in charge. I'm in favor of making the ERT supplement the station, rather than having them take control. It's giving too much power to some greyshirt who died to a changeling an hour ago, who happened to hit the button fast enough because they wanted to get back into the game, but now they have no clue what the hell they should be doing.

Another thing: Don't be a cunt, be blunt, and have a good day nerds.

[Deanthelis]

You guys completely missed the joke.

Good job.

[FPK]

9 minutes ago, Deanthelis said:

You guys completely missed the joke.

Good job.

We're the fun police, this is supr srs bizniz. To be honest though, I gave up reading your post after Nanotrasen Workplace Morale Association Document #2282-33-45-A came up, and just started skimming it. 

[GunDOS]

16 minutes ago, Deanthelis said:

You guys completely missed the joke.

Good job.

Nerd.

[Shadeykins]

8 hours ago, Saul Argon said:

Firstly, I was just expressing my opinion using the noun "I". The point of this thread is to express opinions please refrain from attacking myself and not my arguments.

That's not an attack on you. You were positing that something should be changed based off the fact that's the way you play the job. Your entire argument is predicated based off the fact that you want to manage the IAA's and that you're capable of doing so. I'm aware you're capable of doing so - but most people who play Rep aren't and don't choose the role to run a department.

The basis of your argument was based off your personal experience with the position and doesn't take broader considerations into account, pointing out the flaws in that form of argumentation is not a personal attack on you in any way, shape, or form. Opinions can be wrong, me challenging your opinion does not equate to me personally attacking you.

As stated earlier your idea fails to take into account the knock-on effects, complications, and power-creep your suggestion entails.

[GunDOS]

14 minutes ago, Shadeykins said:

That's not an attack on you. You were positing that something should be changed based off the fact that's the way you play the job. Your entire argument is predicated based off the fact that you want to manage the IAA's and that you're capable of doing so. I'm aware you're capable of doing so - but most people who play Rep aren't and don't choose the role to run a department.

The basis of your argument was based off your personal experience with the position and doesn't take broader considerations into account, pointing out the flaws in that form of argumentation is not a personal attack on you in any way, shape, or form. Opinions can be wrong, me challenging your opinion does not equate to me personally attacking you.

As stated earlier your idea fails to take into account the knock-on effects, complications, and power-creep your suggestion entails.

To start, you made a comment to my play time here. This looks very much like you were trying to invalidate my argument via making me look bad. That is, by definition a personal attack. But this is besides the point, and we should drop this line of argument.

Secondly I was adding weight to another's argument with my personal experience. Also I do not believe that it was stated that if this came to pass the NT Rep would run the IAA "department", but only use them as an added resource. Though I may be wrong on that.

Lastly, in my opinion NT Reps have in fact too little power. Sometimes it's just you and your fax machine, sending faxes that sometimes are not even read. And to repeat this thread is not about the NT Rep. It is about updates to SOP. Let us move back to the topic at hand.

[Shadeykins]

10 hours ago, Saul Argon said:

To start, you made a comment to my play time here. This looks very much like you were trying to invalidate my argument via making me look bad. That is, by definition a personal attack. But this is besides the point, and we should drop this line of argument.

Secondly I was adding weight to another's argument with my personal experience. Also I do not believe that it was stated that if this came to pass the NT Rep would run the IAA "department", but only use them as an added resource. Though I may be wrong on that.

Lastly, in my opinion NT Reps have in fact too little power. Sometimes it's just you and your fax machine, sending faxes that sometimes are not even read. And to repeat this thread is not about the NT Rep. It is about updates to SOP. Let us move back to the topic at hand.

1) ? What. The nature of the server is people come and go. I've been around for 2 years and even I vanish for 4-6 months now and then. That's not a personal attack. I even went as far as to say you seem to have a different idea of playing Rep, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The fact that you think I'm personally attacking you is ridiculous, as I have it on good authority that you're one of the better reps and couched my entire post from that angle.

Me saying "Why yes, you can handle multiple cases at a time" and then elaborating "But most people can't, so we shouldn't base this around your personal capabilities" is not a personal attack, it's stating that you're a cut above the rest and because of that we should realistically situate ourselves *below* your capabilities. I suggest you read the entirety of my post because you've somehow mistaken a compliment for an insult.

2) The idea pushed forward (which has been floating for some time) is the NT Rep is the IAA's boss. I don't mind the NT Rep working with IAA's, but he shouldn't be their co-departmental head which is what is being pushed forward. People want the NT Rep to have direct control over the IAA's and direct them around/tell them what to do.

3) This is about changes to NT Rep SoP which I've put forward in writing in an earlier post. It's very pertinent and it has everything to do with the topic on hand.

[Birdtalon]

May I point out that while experience on the server is greatly appreciated, it's a moot point discussing how long one may or may not have played. An opinion isn't more or less valid based on your playtime or how long you've been around.

Secondly, regardless of your stance - discussion of the NT Rep's role is fundamentally interlinked with SOP (Or whatever form you want it to take) and while this topic is titled "Standard Operating Procedure Update" it would be unwise to disregard any discussion of the role.

As I was discussing on Discord, my belief is not that SOP itself is flawed or inadequate and that it does not require a complete overhaul as some people are proposing. The real "problem", if you can call it that is the lack of action which is taken on breaching SOP. I think this is the main area which needs to be cleared up across the board. Such as, at what point does breaching SOP equal job loss and what procedure is to be followed to carry out the demotion. Right now it seems to vary from the Head telebatoning the person repeatedly and stealing their ID to the person being full-on arrested by Security. This needs to be clarified in my mind.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Birdtalon

[GunDOS]

33 minutes ago, Birdtalon said:

As I was discussing on Discord, my belief is not that SOP itself is flawed or inadequate and that it does not require a complete overhaul as some people are proposing. The real "problem", if you can call it that is the lack of action which is taken on breaching SOP. I think this is the main area which needs to be cleared up across the board. Such as, at what point does breaching SOP equal job loss and what procedure is to be followed to carry out the demotion. Right now it seems to vary from the Head telebatoning the person repeatedly and stealing their ID to the person being full-on arrested by Security. This needs to be clarified in my mind.

On this, I think we should put in place @Anticept's teired SOP. That way, we can much more clearly define what the punishment for a breech of certain aspects of SOP. 

@Shadeykins let us please move on, if you want to talk about this further. Contact me on the discord. At this point we are just killing this thread.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Saul Argon

[FlattestGuitar]

Bringing up @ZN23X's points from the first page, I feel that enforcement of general SOP is very hard for Security. There is no law that allows Security personnel to actually punish Civilians for running around in the hallways, sans ID, gas mask on and refusing a search on Red Alert, all of which are against SOP.

Simply by virtue of the only punishment being a demotion, all Civilians seem to be completely exempt from SOP.

People give Security a hard time just because they can and not giving Sec the proper tools to fight that seems odd to me.

It won't be easy to solve this by limiting the enforcement to only certain select few entries in SOP, but I do feel that it will be worth it.

[GunDOS]

@FlattestGuitar in general SoP is hard to enforce. Technically if you fire someone for an SoP breech your breaking the forward. I think we should codify punishments for breakage of SoP and/or inplament @Anticept's tiered SoP design.

[FPK]

Currently, the punishment for breaking SOP is grounds for demotion/dismissal if approved by a head, and brig time if the breach broke a law at the same time. The problem with enforcing SOP this way is how long it takes. A single incident can take up to half an hour to settle. The incident needs to be found by someone in legal, they need to do their investigation, then contact the relevant head and work on dealing with the people behind the incident. Usually, this process falls to the IAA, who is probably more mistreated than the clown on a daily basis. Tiered SOP will help codify the magnitude SOP breaches, but what we really need is some way to streamline the process. 

[Rurik]

1 hour ago, FPK said:

Usually, this process falls to the IAA, who is probably more mistreated than the clown on a daily basis.

Can confirm

[Wheatley29]

On 19/04/2017 at 2:19 PM, FlattestGuitar said:

Bringing up @ZN23X's points from the first page, I feel that enforcement of general SOP is very hard for Security. There is no law that allows Security personnel to actually punish Civilians for running around in the hallways, sans ID, gas mask on and refusing a search on Red Alert, all of which are against SOP.

Simply by virtue of the only punishment being a demotion, all Civilians seem to be completely exempt from SOP.

People give Security a hard time just because they can and not giving Sec the proper tools to fight that seems odd to me.

It won't be easy to solve this by limiting the enforcement to only certain select few entries in SOP, but I do feel that it will be worth it.

My response to that situation is to just charge them with creation of a workplace hazard. It may not be awfully appropriate but I've noticed it stops some non antag shittery.

[FPK]

Science SOP should probably cover golems like how it covers gold slime extracts. Golems should have to be approved by the RD before they can be allowed to roam free, and their creator should be responsible for any crimes they commit. While it should be pretty obvious that golems seriously breaking the law should be destroyed instead of serving brig time, knowing how security operates it wouldn't hurt to cover law breaking golems in SOP as well.

 

Quote

4. Botanists are not permitted to hand out (spatially) unstable Botanical Supplies to non-Hydroponics personnel;

With the recent overhaul to botany, there are now a lot of dangerous plants the botanists can grow. Restricting botany from freely distributing dangerous plant-based weapons without proper approval should be a part of SOP. This should include gatfruit, death tomatoes, death grapes, death... literally fucking anything.

Quote

5. Botanists are not permitted to harvest Amanitin or other such plant/fungi-derived poisons, unless specifically requested by the Head of Security and/or Captain

I have never seen this used, ever. The crime should probably be accumulating poisons or harmful chemicals that serve no medicinal purpose. Making amanitin pills is bad, harvesting the plant that produces it isn't.

While letting bees escape botany is usually just charged as creating a workplace hazard, SOP for bees would be helpful. Death and drug bees are fairly common.

Quote

3. The Chef must produce at least three (3) dishes of any food within twenty (20) minutes. Failure to do so is to be considered a breach of Standard Operating Procedure;

4. The Chef is not permitted to leave the kitchen unattended for longer than fifteen (15) minutes if there is no food available for consumption. Exception is made if there are no ingredients, or if the Kitchen is unusable/a hazard zone

Point three is rendered useless by point four, considering that point three is to make sure that the chef is always producing food. However, point four is there to make sure that the chef always has food available. No one cares if the chef isn't making new food, if the counters are fully stocked.

The chef should have to have a variety of foods available, in order to keep the crew happy and to satisfy carnivores and herbivores. Only serving tofu leaves the carnivores with nothing to eat, and only serving tacos does the same thing to herbivores. Three different dishes should be available from the kitchen, with selections for carnivores and herbivores available.

Quote

5. Security Officers may demand entry to specific Departments during regular patrols;

Tacking onto this point that refusing to allow an officer entry to a department should be considered creating a workplace hazard. 

[Jovaniph]

Quote

1. Atmospheric Technicians are permitted to completely repipe the Atmospherics Piping Setup, provided they do not pump harmful gases into anywhere except the Turbine;

2. Atmospheric Technicians are not permitted to create volatile mixes using Plasma and Oxygen, nor are they permitted to create any potentially harmful mixes with Carbon Dioxide and/or Nitrous Oxide. An exception is made when working with the Turbine;

This has conflicts when building a TEG. At least in my perspective, it seems that way.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Jovaniph

[FPK]

 

I asked pinatacolada for his opinion on medical SOP, and this is what I got in response:

Quote

11. Once the Viral Outbreak is over, all personnel are to return to regular duties

Quote

"the last one for virologists is dum"

I have to agree, it's pretty redundant.

 

Quote

6. The Paramedic must carry, at all times, enough materials to provide for adequate first aid of all Major Injury Types (Brute, Burn, Toxic, Respiratory and Brain)

Quote

"same for the last paramedic one"
"in 2 years playing i can count by the fingers of one hand the ammount of players i saved from brain death, and it was never a paramedic case ergo the paramedic has no use to pack mannitol"

 

Quote

1. Attending Surgeon must use Latex/Nitrile gloves in order to prevent infection. Though not mandatory, a Sterile Mask is recommended;

Quote

"surgery sop rule 1 should make masks mandatory now"

Recent changes to surgery has made wearing a mask mandatory in order to reduce infection.

 

Quote

4. Attending Surgeon is to use either Anesthetics or Sedatives (for species that cannot breathe Anesthetics) during Surgical Procedures. Exception is made if the patient requests otherwise;

Quote

"anesthetics/sedatives should not be mandatory for species that cant feel pain"

Just slap pinatacolada's point onto the end of this point, and it'll be fine.

 

Quote

5. Medical Doctors must maintain the entirety of Medbay in an hygienic state. This includes, but is not limited to, cleaning organic residue, fluids and corpses;

Quote

"the clean bodily fluids thing should be moved to the janitor really

as it stands it says i should be space cleaning medbay instead of doing internal bleeding surgery on someone"

While this where I would say "context is king", he does have a point in that the janitor already has SOP for keeping medbay clean.

 

Virology and Viral Outbreak SOP both need to be redone, considering they were meant for a virology system that we no longer use. Seeing as I'm not the best at virology, I'm just going to quote pinatacolada in length.

Quote

"oh and the entire virology sop needs to be revised

it was written for old viro

the 25% crew infected thing from viro is unrealistic when things like cold outbreaks or those kind of viruses you can ignore happen"

"6 and 7 [Of viral outbreak procedures] need to be scrapped altogether as its about radium which isnt a thing anymore

but if its orange juice then its a matter of whats more in hand to cure someone

if its brainrot i'd vouch to use mannitol instead of the actual viro cure as it will also fix whatever damage it caused"

"theres also no point in taking more blood samples of the same thing if one was already taken"

Huge thanks to pinatacolada for his input.

[FPK]

Trading/selling/giving away job specific weapons, gear, equipment, and supplies should count as theft. The bartender trading away his shotgun, engineers letting people take circuit boards from tech storage, officers giving away weapons, ect.