Command Job SOP --- Complete!

[Keroman]

Nor is telecommunications but that doesn't stop people from messing around with it and adding all sorts of colors, censor scripts, and such. I would argue that none of that is "beneficial" as per RD SOP but there are still those few people who do it and don't seem to care that it annoys everyone else.

[Spacemanspark]

 

One antagonizes a specific job and makes it very difficult and unfun, as well as being difficult to revert depending on who did it, the law itself, and what the crew thinks.

The other is something that's pretty easy to fix, many people can reach it, and generally doesn't screw things over too much regardless.

[spoiler2]I hate censor scripts, though.[/spoiler2]

 

[TullyBBurnalot]

 

Added:

 

However, the Captain is not permitted to take items from the Armory under normal circumstances, unless authorized by the Head of Security

 

To the Captain's "Security Duty" Guideline.

 

[necaladun]

 

Added:

 

However, the Captain is not permitted to take items from the Armory under normal circumstances, unless authorized by the Head of Security

 

To the Captain's "Security Duty" Guideline.

 

Raiding all the sec lockers it is! Ooh, and I'll take that sec pod tyvm.

 

[tastyfish]

 

No Law Changes are to be performed without full approval from the Captain,

 

Edit: Some of the AI maintenance laws seem to be for the AI, which seems silly; the AI is of course not bound by SoP and thus defining what turrets should be set to, etc seems useless.

 

[necaladun]

 

No Law Changes are to be performed without full approval from the Captain,

 

Edit: Some of the AI maintenance laws seem to be for the AI, which seems silly; the AI is of course not bound by SoP and thus defining what turrets should be set to, etc seems useless.

 

I think it's more meant to cover orders here, and thus what people are allowed to order them to be set to. With some lawsets, the AI has to follow said orders after all.

 

[TullyBBurnalot]

 

No Law Changes are to be performed without full approval from the Captain,

 

Edit: Some of the AI maintenance laws seem to be for the AI, which seems silly; the AI is of course not bound by SoP and thus defining what turrets should be set to, etc seems useless.

 

Holy crap, how did I miss that without?

 

Alsl, in regards to that, AI Maintenance SOP is very much directed at Command, not the AI.

 

[nickcrazy]

 

Should there be something added regarding what to do with a captain or a head who's gone ssd with high value equipment on them? Maybe something instructing command what to do with high value items if they are going to cryo?

 

You have no idea how many captains I've seen go to cryo with the disk still on them and a random civilian reporting they found the disk in maint.

 

[Kyet]

 

If a Head of Staff is not available for a Department, the Captain must ensure themselves that Standard Operating Procedure is followed;

 

Alternatively: "the captain must make reasonable efforts to find and appoint a head for that department".

 

The Captain may not fire anyone from Command without majority approval from Command, unless said someone is blatantly acting against the best interests of NanoTrasen, the station and crew. In the case of a voting deadlock, the Captain is to be considered the tiebreaker vote;

 

Alternatively: "The Captain may not fire anyone from command without good reason."

Requiring a vote is silly.

 

No Law Changes are to be performed without full approval from the Captain, Research Director and at least one other member of Command (Blueshield excluded).

 

Alternatively: "No law changes are to be performed without the approval of the Captain AND Research Director. In the event there is no Research Director, any other head of staff may fill in to confirm the law change."

Captain + RD should be enough to authorize a law change.

 

Also, the word "full" is redundant. In the spirit of Yoda, there is only approval, and lack of approval. There is no "approval but not full approval".

 

Freeform Laws are only to be added if absolutely necessary due to external circumstances (such as major station emergencies). Adding Freeform Laws without proper approval is to be considered Sabotage;

Freeform laws are a major source of fun, and this removes that entirely.

 

In the absence of a Captain, the Head of Personnel is to be considered the Acting Captain.

What happens if the HoP decides they don't want to be acting captain? I've seen this happen a few times.

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Guest

[Keroman]

 

The Captain may not fire anyone from Command without majority approval from Command, unless said someone is blatantly acting against the best interests of NanoTrasen, the station and crew. In the case of a voting deadlock, the Captain is to be considered the tiebreaker vote;

 

Alternatively: "The Captain may not fire anyone from command without good reason."

Requiring a vote is silly.

 

Agreed. The Captain is the head of staff for Command after all. Just like any other department head can fire someone in their department with just cause so too should the Captain.

 

Freeform Laws are only to be added if absolutely necessary due to external circumstances (such as major station emergencies). Adding Freeform Laws without proper approval is to be considered Sabotage;

Freeform laws are a major source of fun, and this removes that entirely.

 

There's absolutely no harm in a Captain asking the AI if it minds him uploading a "fun" law and the AI approving of it. The Command staff should not have the right to force silly or pointless laws if the AI is being played by someone who doesn't care for them. A single poorly worded law can mean the difference between a fun round and a frustrating one for any AI player.

 

[FlattestGuitar]

 

Head of Personnel

5. The Head of Personnel may not give any Non-Command personnel Captain-Level access without permission from the Captain... *blah blah*

Seems pretty silly to mention only non-command personnel in the first line. I feel like this whole entry could be made way shorter.

 

Head of Personnel

10. The Head of Personnel may not create Captain-Level access ID Cards unless they are actually necessary

Possibly allow it in case of a large danger to the station? Nuke ops, meteor storms and so on...

I've often seen the HoP give out all-access like cookies and there isn't much harm to it if there's a blob locked inside electrical maint or some other hard to access place.

 

Blueshield

5. The Blueshield is not to request, or be provided with, additional ID access, Security equipment, or any further weaponry under normal circumstances. Should a situation arise where additional equipment or station access is a requirement to the effective protection of Command Staff, they should not be be issued without authorization from the Head of Security and/or Captain

I know I'm probably the largest abuser of this myself, but it is pretty sensible to at least ask for basic access to a few places like heads' offices or the mining station just in case there's nobody around to give it to the Blueshield when it's desperately needed. How about just stating that access to a department can only happen with its head's full approval?

 

[Coldflame]

 

I know I'm probably the largest abuser of this myself, but it is pretty sensible to at least ask for basic access to a few places like heads' offices or the mining station just in case there's nobody around to give it to the Blueshield when it's desperately needed. How about just stating that access to a department can only happen with its head's full approval?

I've played more than my fair share of blueshield (albiet not recently), and in my experience, their roundstart access is sufficient to do their job. I'm not sure how much it happens recently, but in my experience I was offered roundstart all-access by around half of captains.

 

Head offices are perhaps an exception (blueshield probably SHOULD have access to head offices roundstart, though it's been discussed several times and the general consensus seems to be otherwise). Perhaps 'An exception can be made regarding access to a member of command staff's office, provided they consent'.

 

[FlattestGuitar]

 

There was one round I had as a blueshield a long time ago where we had the RD shouting for help on comms and then his death alarm going off in Robotics.

When I got to the science wing I saw a dirty tator standing over his corpse, but I couldn't get in. I asked the AI to open, but by the time the airlock opened both the RD and the tator teleported out with a parasite. Ever since then I ask for all-access, because that's literally the only thing could have saved the RD that shift, but I didn't have it.

 

It's not like a blueshield will just devastate a department by having access to it, and I don't imagine looting important equipment left and right to be something that happens either. If it does, it's literally a crime.

 

[Farya]

 

There was one round I had as a blueshield a long time ago where we had the RD shouting for help on comms and then his death alarm going off in Robotics.

When I got to the science wing I saw a dirty tator standing over his corpse, but I couldn't get in. I asked the AI to open, but by the time the airlock opened both the RD and the tator teleported out with a parasite. Ever since then I ask for all-access, because that's literally the only thing could have saved the RD that shift, but I didn't have it.

 

It's not like a blueshield will just devastate a department by having access to it, and I don't imagine looting important equipment left and right to be something that happens either. If it does, it's literally a crime.

Good point here. Brig physician have greater access that detective but its very rarely any of them take something from secs lockers without order/permission from warden or hos. So if the brig doctor do not abuse his access why blueshild will do?

So blueshield should have greater access but not full one.

Moreover Blueshield is costly Karma job. Only experienced players supposed to play them.

 

[necaladun]

 

The thing with access is that it's not just about doors. Theft dictates that it's about taking things from areas one does not have access to, hence the blueshield having highly restricted access, because of how they abused it when they had more.

 

I think it would make sense to either specify their access does not mean they can raid cargo/science for toys, and/or that they need the department head's approval for access to their department. You don't want the blueshield having access to robotics as RD? Your call, but potentially your funeral.

 

[Farya]

 

I think it would make sense to either specify their access does not mean they can raid cargo/science for toys, and/or that they need the department head's approval for access to their department. You don't want the blueshield having access to robotics as RD? Your call, but potentially your funeral.

That would be the best choice IMHO. Blueshield have wide access across the station but could only use it to accompany his protecty, in emergency to save any of VIP, or with the authorisation of respectful head. Want supplies? Ask Head of Personel. One of the new RnD things looks useful for your job? Ask Research director.

Its good when Blueshield quietly visit departmens to check the heads of staff but he should not disrupt the work of any of it. Moreover Blueshield must leave the department if the Head feel his present annoying or irritating and asks to leave. (Not everyone likes to have an armed man nearby or just like to work alone)

 

[TullyBBurnalot]

 

Should there be something added regarding what to do with a captain or a head who's gone ssd with high value equipment on them? Maybe something instructing command what to do with high value items if they are going to cryo?

 

You have no idea how many captains I've seen go to cryo with the disk still on them and a random civilian reporting they found the disk in maint.

 

Honestly belongs more in the Server Rules than SOP. It's accepted protocol that if a Head logs off, all sensitive equipment stays behind.

 

Alternatively: "the captain must make reasonable efforts to find and appoint a head for that department".

 

Why not both? Changed it to:

 

If a Head of Staff is not available for a Department, the Captain must ensure themselves that Standard Operating Procedure is followed, or must at least make reasonable efforts to find and appoint an Acting Head for that Department

 

Next up:

 

Alternatively: "The Captain may not fire anyone from command without good reason."

Requiring a vote is silly.

 

I have to say I disagree. Letting the Captain fire someone "with good reason" allows for a tad bit too much wriggle room. Whose good reason? What's a good reason?

 

Keep in mind, the vote is only for situations where the Head isn't being openly incompetent, ie, situations where conflicts may arise. Having the whole of Command on board what may very well be a controversial decision saves a lot of hassle.

 

Alternatively: "No law changes are to be performed without the approval of the Captain AND Research Director. In the event there is no Research Director, any other head of staff may fill in to confirm the law change."

Captain + RD should be enough to authorize a law change.

 

I was honestly thinking about collusion between shitter Captain and RDs when I wrote that, but I suppose you do have a point. Plus, there's the whole vote thing where the rest of Command can shut down shit law changes. Changed.

 

Also, the word "full" is redundant. In the spirit of Yoda, there is only approval, and lack of approval. There is no "approval but not full approval".

 

I find your pedantry refreshing. Changed.

 

Freeform laws are a major source of fun, and this removes that entirely.

 

I'll echo Spacemanspark here. Freeform Laws are fun for the people that upload them. Frequently, the AI has absolutely no control over when a Captain randomly uploads a Freeform, and may very well be forced to RP in a way they don't want to because the Captain wants keks.

 

That said, I'll add the following to the Guideline:

 

Exception is made if the AI Unit and majority of Command agree to the Freeform Law that is proposed

 

That way, everyone can have fun. Right? Right?!

 

What happens if the HoP decides they don't want to be acting captain? I've seen this happen a few times.

 

I actually hadn't considered that. I'll add the following to Revised CoC:

 

A Captain may choose to step down from Command. If they do so, Chain of Command is to be followed, and the former Captain is to be assigned to another job;

 

An Acting Captain may step down from Command. If they do so, Chain of Command is to be followed, and the former Acting Captain is to return to their original rank. If this process reaches the voting stage, any Head may opt out of being a candidate;

 

All Acting Captains/Heads are to secure all sensitive items associated with their rank. These items are to be returned to their respective office once an official Captain/Head of Staff is assigned

 

Next up:

 

Agreed. The Captain is the head of staff for Command after all. Just like any other department head can fire someone in their department with just cause so too should the Captain.

 

Once more, if the Head is blatantly breaking procedure/law and/or being absolutely incompetent at their job, the Captain may just fire them. Voting is required in situations that don't outright provide an obvious reason.

 

There's absolutely no harm in a Captain asking the AI if it minds him uploading a "fun" law and the AI approving of it. The Command staff should not have the right to force silly or pointless laws if the AI is being played by someone who doesn't care for them. A single poorly worded law can mean the difference between a fun round and a frustrating one for any AI player.

 

See above.

 

Seems pretty silly to mention only non-command personnel in the first line. I feel like this whole entry could be made way shorter.

 

Changed to:

 

The Head of Personnel may only give Captain-Level access to someone if they are the Acting Captain. This access is to be removed when a proper Captain arrives on the station;

 

Next up:

 

Possibly allow it in case of a large danger to the station? Nuke ops, meteor storms and so on...

I've often seen the HoP give out all-access like cookies and there isn't much harm to it if there's a blob locked inside electrical maint or some other hard to access place.

 

I'll repeat myself for the millionth time:

 

STANDARD Operating Procedure.

 

Nuke Ops, Meteor Storms and Blobs are not standard. Anyone who complains about the HoP giving people increased access during those situations can rightfully be ignored.

 

I know I'm probably the largest abuser of this myself, but it is pretty sensible to at least ask for basic access to a few places like heads' offices or the mining station just in case there's nobody around to give it to the Blueshield when it's desperately needed. How about just stating that access to a department can only happen with its head's full approval?

 

The Blueshield has general access to all departments. In fact, the rule is "Blueshield gets enough access to reach Department Head Offices". Any further access is a luxury, not a necessity.

 

If there's an emergency, see the above point in large, bold, underlined, italic letters.

 

Head offices are perhaps an exception (blueshield probably SHOULD have access to head offices roundstart, though it's been discussed several times and the general consensus seems to be otherwise). Perhaps 'An exception can be made regarding access to a member of command staff's office, provided they consent'.

 

Well, most of the time, the Blueshield has to protect Heads outside their offices, seeing as that's where most crimes happen.

 

However, I'll change it to this:

 

Should a situation arise where additional equipment or station access is a requirement to the effective protection of Command Staff, they should not be be issued without authorization from the Head of Security and/or Captain (for additional equipment), or the relevant Department Head (for increased access)

 

Emphasis added. Next up:

 

I think it would make sense to either specify their access does not mean they can raid cargo/science for toys, and/or that they need the department head's approval for access to their department. You don't want the blueshield having access to robotics as RD? Your call, but potentially your funeral.

 

Basically this. See above.

 

[Kyet]

 

Alternatively: "the captain must make reasonable efforts to find and appoint a head for that department".

 

Why not both? Changed it to:

 

If a Head of Staff is not available for a Department, the Captain must ensure themselves that Standard Operating Procedure is followed, or must at least make reasonable efforts to find and appoint an Acting Head for that Department

 

That does not qualify as 'both'.

Requote, with emphasis added:

If a Head of Staff is not available for a Department, the Captain must ensure themselves that Standard Operating Procedure is followed, or must at least make reasonable efforts to find and appoint an Acting Head for that Department

 

That "or" there could be interpreted as: "So long as a Captain has made a reasonable effort to appoint an acting head for a department, they've done all they need to do under this rule." A skeptic might interpret that as: "So long as a Captain makes reasonable efforts to appoint a head for all departments, they are not violating this SOP rule, regardless of how many SOP violations their departments commit".

 

 

Alternatively: "The Captain may not fire anyone from command without good reason."

Requiring a vote is silly.

 

I have to say I disagree. Letting the Captain fire someone "with good reason" allows for a tad bit too much wriggle room. Whose good reason? What's a good reason?

A good reason is one of the set list of valid causes for demotion stated on the Wiki.

 

Adding this weird voting requirement means either:

(A) It provides an additional valid reason for a Captain to demote a head when none of the other valid reasons for demotion apply, in which case Captains can demote anyone they can get the heads to vote against for any/no reason. This encourages demotions to be a popularity contest rather than a comparison with a set of objective standards - it basically lets the Captain initiate a "vote them out" against any head for no reason.

Or:

(B) It doesn't provide an additional valid reason, in which case it is completely redundant because voting can't make an invalid reason valid or a valid reason invalid, and thus has no actual impact on whether a demotion is legit or not.

 

If (A) is the case, you're effectively giving Captains an additional criteria they can optionally use to justify a demotion, which is an expansion of power rather than a restriction, and if (B) is the case you're wasting words as votes are still not a valid justification.

 

Neither seems like what you want to be doing.

 

Keep in mind, the vote is only for situations where the Head isn't being openly incompetent, ie, situations where conflicts may arise. Having the whole of Command on board what may very well be a controversial decision saves a lot of hassle.

Suppose the CMO gets on medical comms, and starts asking basic questions like "how do I treat a wound?". It is obvious they do not have the knowledge to be CMO. They're incompetent, but they're not openly so, because only other people with medical radio access see it. The Captain sees it, and moves to demote after it becomes clear the CMO has no medical experience, but the other heads vote against him, because they (not having medical radio access) never saw the comments, and the CMO is claiming they're having a "slow day" or whatever. What was previously an obvious demotion is now a contentious topic - and for no good reason. "Openly incompetent" is a lot easier to detect when you can see all radio chatter.

 

[liran424]

 

6. The Captain must keep the Nuclear Authentication Disk on their person at all times or, failing that, in the possession of the Head of Security or Blueshield

 

I think it should be: The Captain must keep the Nuclear Authentication Disk in a secure location or on themselves at all times or, failing that, in the possession of the Head of Security or HoP

 

I see no reason to give the blueshield the nuke disk because he's in charge of protecting the heads... not the disk. In case of a nuke ops invasion the blueshield first priority is to the heads not that damned disk.

 

[necaladun]

 

Stopping the station getting nuked means you protect all the heads at once.

 

And honestly, no location except on a person is particularly secure.

 

[liran424]

put it inside a safe and they'll never guess where it is

[Coldflame]

 

put it inside a safe and they'll never guess where it is

unless they have a pinpointer?

 

like 90% of people stealing the disk will have?

 

the one, ONE thing the captain needs to do is carry the damned disk

 

[Vivalas]

Woah, I need to read through this thread, but, why does the HoP not have the authority to overrule the QM? I always figured the HoP was in charge of supply and service.

[Farya]

 

Woah, I need to read through this thread, but, why does the HoP not have the authority to overrule the QM? I always figured the HoP was in charge of supply and service.

HoP just overseers cargo. QM is actual cargo "head". His rank is even colored the same way every head rank colored in Crew Manifest. QM just not so important to have full head rights such as Bridge access and Keycard auth. device. Basically if every head is an actual officer(Captain, HoP, HoS) or equal to one(RD, CMO, CE), QM is NCO.

 

Edited April 10, 2016 by Guest

[pinatacolada]

kinda hijacking this, but i just realized that the medical viral outbreak procedure needs a review, since we're back to virus1 and radium is ded